Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[Bartosz Dziewoński]

Note that I am not an expert, really – I hail from the Polish Wikipedia  
which has FlaggedRevs enabled for all articles (using a pretty simple  
configuration), and I played with it a bit on a private wiki.



On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:38:00 +0100, Anthony Cole   
wrote:



If we apply FlaggedRevs to all medical articles (articles that have the
WP:MED template on their talk page)


I'm not sure if this is possible, I think you currently have to make it  
possible to flag revisions of all articles on the wiki. This could  
possibly be developed, or could just be "enforced" using common sense,  
since these are trusted editors we're talking about anyway.




configured to display the latest
article version, can we create a permission (say, Medicine Reviewer) that
allows one to tag the revision log entry with a comment?


As far as I know, yes.



Would it interfere
in any way with the normal practice of other editors who don't have that
permission?


As far as I know, no. The information on whether a revision was flagged or  
not might be shown in the UI somewhere, but it shouldn't cause any editing  
problems, or any fancy buttons to appear for people without the permission  
to review.



--
Bartosz Dziewoński

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[Anthony Cole]

Thanks Bartosz. Just to clarify:

If we apply FlaggedRevs to all medical articles (articles that have the
WP:MED template on their talk page), configured to display the latest
article version, can we create a permission (say, Medicine Reviewer) that
allows one to tag the revision log entry with a comment? Would it interfere
in any way with the normal practice of other editors who don't have that
permission?

Anthony Cole 


On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Bartosz Dziewoński 
wrote:

> W dniu środa, 12 listopada 2014 Anthony Cole 
> napisał(a):
> >
> > Allow us to tag the log entry of normal revisions (not pending
> > changes/flagged revisions - no medical articles presently have flagged
> > revisions, and none are likely to in the near future) as having been
> > reviewed for policy/guideline compliance by a trusted editor.
>
>
> This is one of the things the FlaggedRevs  extension (the same one that
> powers the "pending changes" system on the English Wikipedia) allows you to
> do. It can be configured to provide arbitrary flags (not just binary
> "okay"/"not okay"), and it can be configured to display the latest version
> of the article (rather than the "flagged" one) to visitors by default, and
> it can be configred to work on all articles on a wiki.
>
>
> --
> -- Matma Rex
> ___
> 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] Revision metadata as a service?

[Bartosz Dziewoński]

W dniu środa, 12 listopada 2014 Anthony Cole 
napisał(a):
>
> Allow us to tag the log entry of normal revisions (not pending
> changes/flagged revisions - no medical articles presently have flagged
> revisions, and none are likely to in the near future) as having been
> reviewed for policy/guideline compliance by a trusted editor.


This is one of the things the FlaggedRevs  extension (the same one that
powers the "pending changes" system on the English Wikipedia) allows you to
do. It can be configured to provide arbitrary flags (not just binary
"okay"/"not okay"), and it can be configured to display the latest version
of the article (rather than the "flagged" one) to visitors by default, and
it can be configred to work on all articles on a wiki.


-- 
-- Matma Rex
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[Anthony Cole]

As someone who patrols recent changes to our 33,000 (and rising) health
sciences-related articles with a diminishing number of colleagues, one
thing developers could do to help us keep that content safe would be this:

Allow us to tag the log entry of normal revisions (not pending
changes/flagged revisions - no medical articles presently have flagged
revisions, and none are likely to in the near future) as having been
reviewed for policy/guideline compliance by a trusted editor.

There are maybe a dozen regular/semi-regular med patrollers (down from
about twice that number three years ago), and I'm very conscious that we
aren't keeping up. If I see a revision has been reviewed by one of that
dozen whom I trust, I'll (not always, but often) skip checking that
revision and move on to the next unreviewed revision.

This will

a) save me and the others a lot of time, allowing us to cover much more
ground and
b) give us a handle on how thoroughly we're vetting changes to this
sensitive content.

Ideally, each of us that reviews a revision should be able to tag its log
entry - so we can see the depth of review each revision has undergone.

The board of Wiki Project Med Foundation are discussing this at the moment,
and we see it as a very effective step toward safeguarding and improving
our medical offering. If you could do this for us, it would be very much
appreciated.

Anthony Cole 


On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Yes, a failed piece of rotting [configuration] code on en.wiki is called
> "Pending changes"; this doesn't mean that the extension, used by over 200
> wikis, has been affected in any way.
>
> Nemo
>
>
> ___
> 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] Revision metadata as a service?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Yes, a failed piece of rotting [configuration] code on en.wiki is called 
"Pending changes"; this doesn't mean that the extension, used by over 
200 wikis, has been affected in any way.


Nemo

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[Jeroen De Dauw]

Hey,

 1. As an editor I'd like to flag a revision as reviewed/verified by me
> from the revision screen or list.
>  2. As an editor I want to see which revisions were verified/had second
> opinion by other editors.
>
> That's not a "service" by any definition I'm aware of, that's a user
> interaction, one that seems to presume the existence of the Wikimedia base.
>

You are right. I was thinking about what has been described in the first
post of this thread.


> There have been some successful products built using the "code first,
> design later" method, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged.
>

Fully agree. Writing code and designing are things that go together. If you
write code without thinking about its design, you'll end up with bad code.
If you design without ever writing code, your designs will likely not hold
up well in the real world.

Cheers

--
Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com
Software craftsmanship advocate
Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany
~=[,,_,,]:3
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[MZMcBride]

Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>FlaggedRevisions has never been rebranded.

If you say so.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial says "Deploy
FlaggedRevs extension to en.wikipedia.org" while
https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=3819 says "As mentioned in this post in
January, the English Wikipedia will be trying out the Flagged Revisions
extension, using a configuration we’re calling Pending Changes."

I seem to specifically remember some Wikimedia Foundation
middle-management coming along and insisting that FlaggedRevs be called
Pending Changes in order to be deployed to the English Wikipedia, but it's
possible I'm simply misremembering. Posts such as
https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=3843 seem to confirm that the terms were
used interchangeably.

MZMcBride



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

FlaggedRevisions has never been rebranded.

Nemo

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[MZMcBride]

Lila Tretikov wrote:
>We seem to really gravitate towards complexity on these things. How can we
>make them simple, addressing a very specific need. We can complicate
>later.

Our wikis range in size from a few hundred revisions to hundreds of
millions of revisions (and growing!). Building a scalable system is hard
work and the Wikimedia Foundation has been pretty aggressive in focusing
primarily on large wikis (Commons and the English Wikipedia), so perhaps
most technical discussions tend to shift to the higher gears as a result.

>   1. As an editor I'd like to flag a revision as reviewed/verified by me
>   from the revision screen or list.
>
>   2. As an editor I want to see which revisions were verified/had second
>   opinion by other editors.

Okay, so... we already have this feature built in to MediaWiki core (it's
documented at ) and
we did the whole "try to flag revisions as reviewed" bit in 2008 and 2009
with a MediaWiki extension called FlaggedRevisions (re-branded as "Pending
Changes" for added confusion).

I'm not sure what you're bringing to the table here. We've already made
substantial investments in developing revision review technology that
didn't work well as it was seemingly incompatible with the wiki model.

MZMcBride



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[Kevin Wayne Williams]

Jeroen De Dauw schreef op 2014/11/09 0:29:

Hey,

I suspect it isn't done because it isn't a very good way to modify a

complex embedded base of software, Lila. Generally, when modifying a
complex embedded base, one designs first, iterates implementation and
internal testing, and then releases a relatively complete piece of
functionality.



As far as I understand this is about adding a new service, not modifying
complex existing behaviour. Is that wrong?

Also, while I can't speak for Lila, it does seem to me she is suggesting to
go with a simple solution that tackles a specific need well, as opposed to
releasing something incomplete. The idea to build small dedicated units
rather than monoliths is not something new or controversial in the world of
software design. Even though it might be in certain insular communities.


Her comment included

 1. As an editor I'd like to flag a revision as reviewed/verified by me
from the revision screen or list.
 2. As an editor I want to see which revisions were verified/had second
opinion by other editors.

That's not a "service" by any definition I'm aware of, that's a user 
interaction, one that seems to presume the existence of the Wikimedia base.


There's no doubt that there's a lot of leeway in terms of how much one 
implements in each release of software, but one should always have a 
reasonably clear image of the final target, know where the piece being 
implemented now fits into the final result, and take steps to ensure 
that each release is sufficiently complete to be useful. There have been 
some successful products built using the "code first, design later" 
method, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged. Even SCRUM 
encourages you to have some idea of what the final result will be, even 
if each phase is scoped opportunistically.


KWW


___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[Jeroen De Dauw]

Hey,

I suspect it isn't done because it isn't a very good way to modify a
> complex embedded base of software, Lila. Generally, when modifying a
> complex embedded base, one designs first, iterates implementation and
> internal testing, and then releases a relatively complete piece of
> functionality.
>

As far as I understand this is about adding a new service, not modifying
complex existing behaviour. Is that wrong?

Also, while I can't speak for Lila, it does seem to me she is suggesting to
go with a simple solution that tackles a specific need well, as opposed to
releasing something incomplete. The idea to build small dedicated units
rather than monoliths is not something new or controversial in the world of
software design. Even though it might be in certain insular communities.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

Cheers

--
Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com
Software craftsmanship advocate
Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany
~=[,,_,,]:3
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[Aaron Halfaker]

Hey Erik,

I'm glad to see that we're imagining similar things.  :)  This project has
been on my to-do list for years.

I don't think that building a well-designed service and starting in labs
are conflicting options.  Regardless this project is marching forward in
the next couple of months.  I don't think we're breaking any new ground
conceptually.  Really, we're just building a feature extractor, gathering
hand-coded revisions and training a standard classifier.  Effective
strategies for doing all of these things are well described in the
literature and demonstrated in STiki.

Lila, your proposal seems to be orthogonal to the project I proposed in the
grant.  Petr, the developer/maintainer of the current version of Huggle,
has been calling for such a service as you describe for years.  See
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/392727?do=post_view_threaded#392727

-Aaron

On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams <
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com> wrote:

> I suspect it isn't done because it isn't a very good way to modify a
> complex embedded base of software, Lila. Generally, when modifying a
> complex embedded base, one designs first, iterates implementation and
> internal testing, and then releases a relatively complete piece of
> functionality.
>
> KWW
>
> Lila Tretikov schreef op 2014/11/08 12:37:
>
>  We seem to really gravitate towards complexity on these things. How can we
>> make them simple, addressing a very specific need. We can complicate
>> later.
>>
>> Here is a scenario (which we should start with, not architecture)
>>
>>
>> 1. As an editor I'd like to flag a revision as reviewed/verified by me
>> from the revision screen or list.
>> 2. As an editor I want to see which revisions were verified/had second
>> opinion by other editors.
>>
>> *So instead of a long spec that attempts to solve for a ton of cases,
>> let's
>> start thinking about solving simple, direct pain-points, iteratively.*
>>
>> Can we do that?
>>
>> L
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>>
>>  On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gabriel Wicke 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  What are the indexing requirements for this metadata? If fast access by
 specific properties is needed

>>> Most typically, I'm guessing you'd do stuff on a per-revision basis to
>>> show quality indicators and such on page histories or article pages
>>> via opt-in gadgets. Querying the entire corpus for articles with
>>> certain characteristics would be valuable though, especially for
>>> applications like offline exports.
>>>
>>> I just saw
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Revision_scoring_as_a_service
>>> and wasn't even aware of that when I wrote the email -- there's
>>> definitely a lot of interest in a generic solution for this problem.
>>>
>>> Erik
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Erik Möller
>>> VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Revision metadata as a service?

[Kevin Wayne Williams]

I suspect it isn't done because it isn't a very good way to modify a 
complex embedded base of software, Lila. Generally, when modifying a 
complex embedded base, one designs first, iterates implementation and 
internal testing, and then releases a relatively complete piece of 
functionality.


KWW

Lila Tretikov schreef op 2014/11/08 12:37:

We seem to really gravitate towards complexity on these things. How can we
make them simple, addressing a very specific need. We can complicate later.

Here is a scenario (which we should start with, not architecture)


1. As an editor I'd like to flag a revision as reviewed/verified by me
from the revision screen or list.
2. As an editor I want to see which revisions were verified/had second
opinion by other editors.

*So instead of a long spec that attempts to solve for a ton of cases, let's
start thinking about solving simple, direct pain-points, iteratively.*

Can we do that?

L

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:


On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gabriel Wicke 
wrote:


What are the indexing requirements for this metadata? If fast access by
specific properties is needed

Most typically, I'm guessing you'd do stuff on a per-revision basis to
show quality indicators and such on page histories or article pages
via opt-in gadgets. Querying the entire corpus for articles with
certain characteristics would be valuable though, especially for
applications like offline exports.

I just saw
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Revision_scoring_as_a_service
and wasn't even aware of that when I wrote the email -- there's
definitely a lot of interest in a generic solution for this problem.

Erik


--
Erik Möller
VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

___
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



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[Lila Tretikov]

We seem to really gravitate towards complexity on these things. How can we
make them simple, addressing a very specific need. We can complicate later.

Here is a scenario (which we should start with, not architecture)


   1. As an editor I'd like to flag a revision as reviewed/verified by me
   from the revision screen or list.
   2. As an editor I want to see which revisions were verified/had second
   opinion by other editors.

*So instead of a long spec that attempts to solve for a ton of cases, let's
start thinking about solving simple, direct pain-points, iteratively.*

Can we do that?

L

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gabriel Wicke 
> wrote:
>
> > What are the indexing requirements for this metadata? If fast access by
> > specific properties is needed
>
> Most typically, I'm guessing you'd do stuff on a per-revision basis to
> show quality indicators and such on page histories or article pages
> via opt-in gadgets. Querying the entire corpus for articles with
> certain characteristics would be valuable though, especially for
> applications like offline exports.
>
> I just saw
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Revision_scoring_as_a_service
> and wasn't even aware of that when I wrote the email -- there's
> definitely a lot of interest in a generic solution for this problem.
>
> Erik
>
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> 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] Revision metadata as a service?

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gabriel Wicke  wrote:

> What are the indexing requirements for this metadata? If fast access by
> specific properties is needed

Most typically, I'm guessing you'd do stuff on a per-revision basis to
show quality indicators and such on page histories or article pages
via opt-in gadgets. Querying the entire corpus for articles with
certain characteristics would be valuable though, especially for
applications like offline exports.

I just saw 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Revision_scoring_as_a_service
and wasn't even aware of that when I wrote the email -- there's
definitely a lot of interest in a generic solution for this problem.

Erik


-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[Gabriel Wicke]

Erik,

On 11/05/2014 10:07 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> I'm wondering if a lightweight service that satisfies the following
> requirements might be a good idea:
> 
> - community-created schemas (similar to the EventLogging schemas on meta)
> - basic per-user authentication/authorization
> - basic namespacing (e.g. "WikiProject Medicine:Quality" refers to a
> specific schema + specific permissions)


the need for storing different formats and metadata per revision was
actually one of the motivations for creating RESTBase [1]. Currently it is
set up to store html, wikitext, data-parsoid and data-mw per revision, with
each property being stored in its own bucket behind the scenes. It is
possible to add new revisioned buckets for new types of content with a
simple PUT, and the plan is to have separate ACLs per bucket.

What are the indexing requirements for this metadata? If fast access by
specific properties is needed, then using tables would make more sense, as
we'll then be able to leverage secondary indexing. Tables have the same
properties as buckets, and can also be created with a PUT of the schema.
Query results are returned as JSON.

A limitation for queries in RESTBase is that they are limited to indexes
defined in the schema. If ad-hoc queries on arbitrary combinations of
attributes are needed, then ElasticSearch would be more suitable.

> If such a service existed, community members, researchers and
> occasionally WMF itself could create their own tools/gadgets that use
> this service, perhaps with a lightweight global approval process.
> 
> If this seems like a good idea, I'd be curious about implementation
> strategies -- are we blocked on something like SOA Auth [1] to
> implement this as a standalone service? My sense is that you'd want to
> pull this out of MediaWiki for maximum flexibility and simplicity.

It might be possible to improvise a bit, but we'll need basic SOA auth
fairly soon for other use cases too. I'm optimistic that we can start small
though, especially if this doesn't need to tie into browser-based SUL
straight away.

Gabriel

[1]: https://github.com/gwicke/restbase

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[C. Scott Ananian]

I wonder if this might be useful for per-page glossaries?
  https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Scoped_language_converter
 --scott

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[Wikitech-l] Revision metadata as a service?

[Erik Moeller]

Hi folks,

there are many projects which have an interest in generating and
querying metadata for specific revisions:

- community efforts to annotate quality of specific articles
- researchers analyzing revision contents (e.g. to derive quality
heuristics, perform citation analysis, etc.)
- application developers wanting to display/use such metadata

We've gotten inquiries e.g. from WikiProjects and researchers over the years.

I'm wondering if a lightweight service that satisfies the following
requirements might be a good idea:

- community-created schemas (similar to the EventLogging schemas on meta)
- basic per-user authentication/authorization
- basic namespacing (e.g. "WikiProject Medicine:Quality" refers to a
specific schema + specific permissions)

If such a service existed, community members, researchers and
occasionally WMF itself could create their own tools/gadgets that use
this service, perhaps with a lightweight global approval process.

If this seems like a good idea, I'd be curious about implementation
strategies -- are we blocked on something like SOA Auth [1] to
implement this as a standalone service? My sense is that you'd want to
pull this out of MediaWiki for maximum flexibility and simplicity.

Thanks,
Erik

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/SOA_Authentication
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l