On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:46 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Attn Luca and Scott
>
> There are some things best avoided as going against community
> expectations. I would be happy to see flagged revisions deployed on the
> English Wikipedia but I'm well aware that the
FWIW there were sessions at Wikimania about concurrent editing. I think
there is community support for the concept. If it helps us retain good
faith new editors then that is another good reason to press foward on this
subject. Perhaps James Forrester can provide an update on the outlook for
concurr
This last message of yours Jonathan is very insightful and true.
I wonder how it would be possible to set up some kind of controlled study
on how different edit capabilities lead to different engagements. One
could always set up controlled mirrors of the Wikipedia for a small set of
pages on a coh
Jonathan,
I think you are right. My impression, as someone who now is a bit of an
"outsider" in the sense that it's long time I have not done an edit, is
that Wikipedia - that is, Mediawiki - is in need of a usability overhaul.
Other sites where people write just feel smoother, from Blogger to Go
We have had endless discussions about this in the new page patrol community.
Basically there is a divide between those who think it important to communicate
with people as quickly as possible so they have a chance to fix things before
they log off and people such as myself who think that this dr
Attn Luca and Scott
There are some things best avoided as going against community expectations. I
would be happy to see flagged revisions deployed on the English Wikipedia but
I'm well aware that there is a significant lobby against that of people who
believe that it is important that your edit
I don't doubt that Australian newbies editing existing well developed articles
are going to find they are editing things on existing Australian editors watch
lists. My experience of editathons is mostly about creating new articles or
improving very neglected ones, usually by expanding stubs, or
I put a couple of interventions specifically targeting improving the new
contributor experience here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:New_editor_engagement_strategies
Which might have been a mistake as the conversation is happening via email.
Sent from my iPad
> On 26 Sep 2014, a
You are right about conflicts with fast-updated pages. Not sure it would
be worse than the current situation though.
For many low traffic articles, drafts only visible to the user would not
have many conflicts -- basically, for all pages with fewer than a couple of
edits per day this would be true
Yes, drafts visible only to the user are different. I was thinking of
flagged revisions in reference to your idea that edits would first go live
only after a set period of time. This is basically flagged revisions with a
trivial extension that the flagged revision always be the latest revision
that
Flagged revisions is different though, as it requires "trusted" editors to
flag things as approved. I am simply advocating the ability to save drafts
visible only to oneself before "publishing" a change. WordPress, Blogger,
etc have it. And so newcomers could edit to their heart content, without
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Luca de Alfaro wrote:
> Better merging would be welcome. But also less aggressive
> editing/policing.
>
> When I edit openstreetmap I have a better overall experience: the edits
> may or may not go live immediately, but I don't have the impression that
> there is
Australian outreach events generally edit Australian content. Other
Australian editors are likely to be on the watch list and are likely to be
in the timezone. And plenty of non-Australian editors are sitting in their
pyjamas at all hours of the day and night waiting to pounce. Believe me, new
edit
Better merging would be welcome. But also less aggressive
editing/policing.
When I edit openstreetmap I have a better overall experience: the edits may
or may not go live immediately, but I don't have the impression that there
is someone aggressively vetting/refining my edits while I am still doi
Luca wrote:
>
> Re. the edit conflicts happening when a new user is editing:
>
> Can't one add some AJAX to the editor that notifies that one
> still has the editing window open? Maybe editors could wait to
> modify work in progress, if they had that indication, and if the
> content does not seem v
Aaron, would you please post the script you used to create
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Desirable_newcomer_survival_over_time.png
?
I would be happy to modify it to also collect the number of extant
non-redirect articles each desirable user created.
> Aaron wrote:
> >... You'll find th
Re. the edit conflicts happening when a new user is editing:
Can't one add some AJAX to the editor that notifies that one still has the
editing window open? Maybe editors could wait to modify work in progress,
if they had that indication, and if the content does not seem vandalism?
Luca
On Thu,
Yes, training newbies is a great way to learn and to see the flaws that we
mentally blank out. I also found that I need to keep a vanilla account for
demonstrating things to newbies, if I use my WereSpielChequers account the
various extra buttons confuse people.
I wouldn't worry too much about
This is a great discussion.
Kerry, I believe that Steven Walling and what was called the E3 team, now
known as the Growth team, use eye tracking experiments. It would be
interesting to hear about what they're learning, and tie those observations
together with yours and WSC's.
Also, I am happy to
19 matches
Mail list logo
