Re: [Wikitech-l] How to calculate word count in an article according to contributors?
Thank you Robert, In fact what I want is a mechanism to evaluate the contribution of every author. What I think now is to compute the word count of every author, then the system could give a score to them. Is there a better way to evaluate the contribution of the authors? Thanks! Lei Jiang -Original Message- From: wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Rohde Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 1:41 PM To: Wikimedia developers Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] How to calculate word count in an article according to contributors? On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Lei Jiang c...@263.net wrote: Is there a way to calculate word count in an article according to contributors? For example: an article is written by three authors A, B, C. The total word count of this article is 100 words. A write 60 word, B write 30 word, C write 10 words. After the article is stable and no more editing, is there any method that could list the word count for each author automatically? Various people, myself included, have experimented with a variety of technical tools for attribution. Simple cases can easily be done automatically; however, given the variety of ways that content can be edited, one can quickly think of types of edits that are difficult for a machine to attribute correctly. As a result, there isn't any universally agreed upon method or tool for doing what you are talking about in all cases. Depending on what you want it for we may be able to suggest a tool that would make a good attempt in most cases. Perhaps you could be more specific about what type of application you have in mind. -Robert Rohde ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3897 (20090228) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3897 (20090228) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Autopromotion and revoking
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM, ChrisiPK chris...@gmail.com wrote: there is a discussion going on on Commons about a rollback policy. This involves deciding how users should be given this permission. We have been discussing autopromotion, but Andrew told us on IRC that he thinks it's not possible to revoke autopromoted rights. Revoking rollback permission is very important to take care of edit-warring/mass-rollbacking troublemakers, so we don't want to surrender this possibility. Can anyone comment on this, is it effectively impossible to revoke automatically given rights? It would be possible, although kind of hackish. The procedure would be to create a norollback group that can be manually granted and revoked, then make the autopromote criteria for rollback require that the user not be in the norollback group. Possibly a nicer way of doing this would be good, but it should be good enough for now. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Autopromotion and revoking
On 1-Mar-09, at 3:26 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM, ChrisiPK chris...@gmail.com wrote: there is a discussion going on on Commons about a rollback policy. This involves deciding how users should be given this permission. We have been discussing autopromotion, but Andrew told us on IRC that he thinks it's not possible to revoke autopromoted rights. Revoking rollback permission is very important to take care of edit-warring/mass-rollbacking troublemakers, so we don't want to surrender this possibility. Can anyone comment on this, is it effectively impossible to revoke automatically given rights? It would be possible, although kind of hackish. The procedure would be to create a norollback group that can be manually granted and revoked, then make the autopromote criteria for rollback require that the user not be in the norollback group. Possibly a nicer way of doing this would be good, but it should be good enough for now. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l Or it can be done like FlaggedRevs did with the Editor group. Techman224 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Autopromotion and revoking
2009/3/1 Techman224 techman...@yahoo.ca: Or it can be done like FlaggedRevs did with the Editor group. Which was? I didn't thing FlaggedRevs had anything to do with promotions, it just has a few permissions and you use the standard methods of granting them. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Autopromotion and revoking
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Which was? I didn't thing FlaggedRevs had anything to do with promotions, it just has a few permissions and you use the standard methods of granting them. FlaggedRevs, instead of improving the existing autopromote architecture, decided to create its own with the ability to revoke autopromoted groups. It would have been nice if, instead of implementing this in an extension which had nothing to do with autopromotion, the improvements in question were made to core. -- Andrew Garrett Sent from: Sydney New South Wales Australia. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Autopromotion and revoking
Thomas Dalton schrieb: 2009/3/1 Techman224 techman...@yahoo.ca: Or it can be done like FlaggedRevs did with the Editor group. Which was? I didn't thing FlaggedRevs had anything to do with promotions, it just has a few permissions and you use the standard methods of granting them. Not quite. Have a look at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs and you will see, that there is $wgFlaggedRevsAutopromote to control when a user is autopromoted. I initially thought, that FlaggedRevs would use the standard way for autopromotion, which is why I took for granted that this is just what autopromotion works like. Turns out it is not. Regards, ChrisiPK ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Autopromotion and revoking
2009/3/1 Andrew Garrett and...@werdn.us: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Which was? I didn't thing FlaggedRevs had anything to do with promotions, it just has a few permissions and you use the standard methods of granting them. FlaggedRevs, instead of improving the existing autopromote architecture, decided to create its own with the ability to revoke autopromoted groups. It would have been nice if, instead of implementing this in an extension which had nothing to do with autopromotion, the improvements in question were made to core. I stand corrected. Can the changes be ported upstream? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Autopromotion and revoking
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Andrew Garrett and...@werdn.us wrote: FlaggedRevs, instead of improving the existing autopromote architecture, decided to create its own with the ability to revoke autopromoted groups. It would have been nice if, instead of implementing this in an extension which had nothing to do with autopromotion, the improvements in question were made to core. That sounds like a good plan. I nominate Aaron to do it. :) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Autopromotion and revoking
On 1-Mar-09, at 5:21 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Which was? I didn't thing FlaggedRevs had anything to do with promotions, it just has a few permissions and you use the standard methods of granting them. FlaggedRevs, instead of improving the existing autopromote architecture, decided to create its own with the ability to revoke autopromoted groups. It would have been nice if, instead of implementing this in an extension which had nothing to do with autopromotion, the improvements in question were made to core. -- Andrew Garrett Sent from: Sydney New South Wales Australia. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l That wound be good if it was made into the core, also it can be used for other groups too. Techman224 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
What's the holdup in the flagged revisions trial on en:wp? - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: What's the holdup in the flagged revisions trial on en:wp? Is there a bug? -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:49 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Is that the actual requirement for it to happen? (Are you stating this authoritatively, or as a hypothesis? I'm looking for the authoritative answer.) The developers do not normally do configuration changes without a bug (even trivial ones, which this one certainly isn't...). They're used to document the request, requester, to make sure that the change was authorized by the community, to give a clear to-do list... etc. I don't state this authoritatively, but I would be surprised if they did something without a bug. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a bug? More significantly, is there evidence of community consensus? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
2009/3/2 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a bug? More significantly, is there evidence of community consensus? There was a poll which came out about 59%:41% in favour, then Jimbo loudly and publicly requested that it be switched on. There's been a ton of publicity about it, and I find it frankly unbelievable it hasn't been mentioned even in passing in the WMF office. So if it's been sitting there for weeks so a dev can say ah, but you didn't tick this box and file form 10-QF, so sorry then that would be a marvellous illustration of passive sabotage, but not actually being helpful. So, can anyone answer authoritatively? - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: The developers do not normally do configuration changes without a bug (even trivial ones, which this one certainly isn't...). They're used to document the request, requester, to make sure that the change was authorized by the community, to give a clear to-do list... etc. I don't state this authoritatively, but I would be surprised if they did something without a bug. (Effe thinks I'm being mean to the devs here, I'm not, btw. :-) I think the bugzilla is very useful for the things I outlined above and it is not unrealistic to request a bug before a change.) -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
Remember that Brion needs specific parameters for this to be activated. Is there an agreement on which of the various proposals to use? A concise page with the consensus implementation details needs to made on-wiki or on bugzilla. I'm guessing it's some form of Flagged Protection. -Aaron -- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:17 PM To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp? 2009/3/2 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a bug? More significantly, is there evidence of community consensus? There was a poll which came out about 59%:41% in favour, then Jimbo loudly and publicly requested that it be switched on. There's been a ton of publicity about it, and I find it frankly unbelievable it hasn't been mentioned even in passing in the WMF office. So if it's been sitting there for weeks so a dev can say ah, but you didn't tick this box and file form 10-QF, so sorry then that would be a marvellous illustration of passive sabotage, but not actually being helpful. So, can anyone answer authoritatively? - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
Hoi, There are requests for the developers that do have a bug in Bugzilla. The creation for the Pontic Wikipedia has been waiting for 61 days now. You are right that it is amazing that things do not get done. It is however the norm. It is not considered to be acceptable, even Brion has said so on different occasions. At issue is that there are always _urgent_ things that need to be done that prevent the _ordinary_ requests from being done. There is no rea; urgency for enabling flagged revisions, not more so then for the creation of the Pontic Wikipedia. So please wait in line. Thanks, GerardM 2009/3/2 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 2009/3/2 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com : On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a bug? More significantly, is there evidence of community consensus? There was a poll which came out about 59%:41% in favour, then Jimbo loudly and publicly requested that it be switched on. There's been a ton of publicity about it, and I find it frankly unbelievable it hasn't been mentioned even in passing in the WMF office. So if it's been sitting there for weeks so a dev can say ah, but you didn't tick this box and file form 10-QF, so sorry then that would be a marvellous illustration of passive sabotage, but not actually being helpful. So, can anyone answer authoritatively? - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
2009/3/2 Andrew Garrett and...@werdn.us: It isn't clear that the configuration change will be made. Jimmy has very little authority (if any) over technical matters, other than that of a board member, and 59% has never been enough to justify a configuration change. If you ask me, the change could be justified neither by Jimmy's approval, nor by community consensus, without excluding a Foundation-level decision to the contrary. The problem is that this stuff basically isn't set out anywhere. The procedure is not in the least transparent. If it is, please point me at it. Note that what I did was ask about a well-known and widely publicised initiative (that I get PR questions about). The response? Random belligerent challenges. Is this really to be the order of the day? If you want to know with any confidence if it will be enabled, you will need to wait for Brion or Erik to reply. Thank you. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
Hoi, As a member of the language committee I can authoritatively state that the request for a Pontic Wikipedia has been waiting for 60 days. The request fro a Finnish Wikiversity has been waiting for 50 days. I have talked with Brion about this at Fosdem, and he acknowledged that operational issues like this do not get the attention that they deserve. You acknowledge that there is no request in Bugzilla. You state that the process is not clear to you. That is all fine and dandy. You have not indicated anything that makes it obvious why the implementation of a feature that is considered to be controversial should have a priority. Now David, there are two issues: - Operational work like the creation of new projects, the implementation of new featues needs attention - English Wikipedia is the only thing in town I expect that we can agree on the first issue. The second issue is problematic. You give the impression that others have to move out of the way... Hell no! Thanks, GerardM 2009/3/2 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 2009/3/2 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: At issue is that there are always _urgent_ things that need to be done that prevent the _ordinary_ requests from being done. There is no rea; urgency for enabling flagged revisions, not more so then for the creation of the Pontic Wikipedia. So please wait in line. Are you speaking authoritatively, or just adding noise? -d . ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
2009/3/2 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: As a member of the language committee I can authoritatively state that the I meant concerning procedures to actually get things to happen. Thanks for your help. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Weekly Report
MediaWiki Bugzilla Report for February 23, 2009 - March 02, 2009 Status changes this week Bugs NEW : 146 Bugs ASSIGNED : 7 Bugs REOPENED : 25 Bugs RESOLVED : 110 Total bugs still open: 3334 Resolutions for the week: Bugs marked FIXED : 63 Bugs marked REMIND : 0 Bugs marked INVALID: 8 Bugs marked DUPLICATE : 21 Bugs marked WONTFIX: 14 Bugs marked WORKSFORME : 2 Bugs marked LATER : 2 Bugs marked MOVED : 0 Specific Product/Component Resolutions User Metrics New Bugs Per Component Site requests 10 Special pages 7 General/Unknown 6 OpenID 6 Collection 5 New Bugs Per Product MediaWiki 40 Wikimedia 19 MediaWiki extensions18 Kate's Tools1 Top 5 Bug Resolvers niklas.laxstrom [AT] gmail.com 22 JSchulz_4587 [AT] msn.com 11 roan.kattouw [AT] home.nl 9 rhalsell [AT] wikimedia.org 8 PhiLiP.NPC [AT] Gmail.com 5 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:17 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/3/2 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a bug? More significantly, is there evidence of community consensus? There was a poll which came out about 59%:41% in favour, then Jimbo loudly and publicly requested that it be switched on. There's been a ton of publicity about it, and I find it frankly unbelievable it hasn't been mentioned even in passing in the WMF office. So if it's been sitting there for weeks so a dev can say ah, but you didn't tick this box and file form 10-QF, so sorry then that would be a marvellous illustration of passive sabotage, but not actually being helpful. So, can anyone answer authoritatively? As you may or may not be aware, after Jimbo threw his voice behind the issue he got a bunch of pushback from certain members of the community. At the time he ultimately ended up asking people to develop alternative proposals (or alternative ways of configuring Flagged Revisions). There was some discussion of this at various places for a couple weeks, but nothing that seemed to draw a lot of interest. So at least some delay was intentional to accommodate people who wanted to develop other points of view. To the general question, the usual process (which is not necessarily the only process) is to file a bug request with specific configuration settings identified, and point to a community consensus that strongly favors adopting those settings. The FR trial proposal [1] that you mention with 60% support was specific, which is good. Though it is unclear whether 60% support is adequate for such a change. Historically, some devs have been lambasted for making much smaller changes with higher levels of support that nonetheless failed to reach a magical 2/3rds ratio (which some community members feel is the dead minimum for configuration changes). It is understandable that people can be reluctant to act if they know that either course is likely to draw criticism. If people on Wikipedia can't agree on what 60% support ought to mean, it is very difficult to ask the devs to figure it out. At the current time, the way I see it there are three things that can happen: 1) A dev can stick his neck out to make a decision, either affirmative or negative, on whether the 60% survey justifies adopting the proposed trial settings. 2) The WMF can intervene to make a decision. 3) The enwiki community can try to reach a clearer consensus. (I do think one could build more than 60% support by compromising/engaging with some of the more moderate opposition.) Personally, I'd regard 3) as the best outcome, while 2) is perhaps more likely. I would be surprised if any dev wants to jump into this absent either a stronger consensus or a WMF mandate. (Jimbo's personal opinion does not by itself constitute a mandate, though he could certainly put it on the Board's agenda and/or encourage Foundation staff to take up the issue.) -Robert Rohde [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial/Votes ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, As a member of the language committee I can authoritatively state that the request for a Pontic Wikipedia has been waiting for 60 days. The request fro a Finnish Wikiversity has been waiting for 50 days. I have talked with Brion about this at Fosdem, and he acknowledged that operational issues like this do not get the attention that they deserve. I believe the stable versions were originally proposed on enwiki 1,192 days ago in Nov. 2005 (unless there's another page even older than the one I found). It's assumed several shapes and sizes since then but has never disappeared. I know nobody can agree on what settings should ultimately be used, but this is a trivial excuse not to pick something reasonable to use on a trial basis. If everyone will shut the hell up about how long unflagged edits must be left unattended before they expire or flag themselves, or whether or not there is an absolute way to prevent it from being used for purposes other than special high-intensity BLP enforcements, or whether semi-protection should be used in concert with this... for just one bloody second maybe we could get just agree yes, most of us would like a trial run for now, we'll worry about the rest later. But no, last I checked people were stonewalling each other over which of 15 different ***TRIAL scenarios*** would be the best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial/Proposed_trials I don't suppose these clowns work in retail? Ah yes ma'am, paper or plastic, smoking or non-smoking, courtesy fold or no courtesy fold, window or aisle, fries or onion rings with that, mustard or mayo... no, wait I meant catsup... Of course when dealing with people like this I think most of us have a breaking point where we say I don't fucking know, just pick something and surprise me. —C.W. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
2009/3/2 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: As far as the sysadmins go, the procedure is quite transparent and explicit: file a bug with the shell keyword and an exact description of what's desired, together with a pointer to community consensus. The only unclear part of that is the last, and to the extent that's unclear, it's as much the wikis' fault as anyone's (seen a clear enwiki policy on what is consensus lately?). Of course, following this procedure does not currently guarantee that your request will be dealt with in a timely fashion, which is a problem that has been noted, but the procedure is quite clear in any event. The shell keyword was a new one to me. Is the above actually written down anywhere other than your message? I suggest it should be. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:15 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: The shell keyword was a new one to me. It may or may not actually be necessary. Is the above actually written down anywhere other than your message? I suggest it should be. It's probably written down in a bunch of places. If you want to write it down in some more places, be bold. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
2009/3/2 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:15 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Is the above actually written down anywhere other than your message? I suggest it should be. It's probably written down in a bunch of places. If you want to write it down in some more places, be bold. I've asked the same question on internal-l specifically of Brion and Erik, one of whom should be able to officially endorse it and document it somewhere official and suitable. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs trial on en:wp?
Robert Rohde wrote: At the current time, the way I see it there are three things that can happen: 1) A dev can stick his neck out to make a decision, either affirmative or negative, on whether the 60% survey justifies adopting the proposed trial settings. 2) The WMF can intervene to make a decision. 3) The enwiki community can try to reach a clearer consensus. (I do think one could build more than 60% support by compromising/engaging with some of the more moderate opposition.) Options 1 and 2 are near enough to the same thing, since most of the sysadmins are part of the WMF. I'd be happy to enable it as proposed, on the basis of the poll, providing that Brion indicates that he has no objection to that action, after conferring with the rest of the San Francisco staff. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
