So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged
revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening "in the
future some time". What's the policy going to be?
So, quick questions:
1) Is this going to appl
>
> So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
> For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged
> revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening "in the
> future some time". What's the policy going to be?
>
You get different answers dependi
>
> > Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because
> > reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
> I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute
> protection will still be needed. Will this still be available?
Yes, ordinary full protectio
Ok, Erik's post answered some of these:
> So, quick questions:
> 1) Is this going to apply to every page?
No, BLP's and some others.
> 9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions?
Yes.
Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedi
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Apoc 2400 wrote:
> After all, I can email a suggested
> change to them and probably get a reply.
Actually, I've done this (before their recent contributions stuff),
and got a reply within 2 days. I was quite surprised.
So I suppose we should adopt new slogan, 'Wik
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Apoc 2400 wrote:
> Remember also that later edits build on the latest draft. There is no
> branching so a new persons edits cannot be left unflagged while the regulars
> keep editing.
If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own
edits, s
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own
> edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were
> made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked
> "edit this page"? To avoid this, you
2009/8/27 Steve Bennett :
> So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
> For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged
> revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening "in the
> future some time". What's the policy going to be?
I was tryin
2009/8/27 Carcharoth :
> If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own
> edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were
> made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked
> "edit this page"? To avoid this, you would need a warning sayin
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/8/27 Carcharoth :
>
>> If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own
>> edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were
>> made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked
>> "edi
2009/8/27 Carcharoth :
>> I'm guessing this is an opt-in system, and we'll have to encourage
>> people only to use it on low-traffic pages. Hmm.
>
> Sounds like it. Unless we are breaking new ground to what de-wiki did.
My understanding is that the two systems are just different enough
it's hard
Good questions. Here's my personal view:
> So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
The press story (particularly in Britain) seems to be along the lines of:
"Wikipedia, founded on open editing has been forced to restrict editing as
their model has failed"
This
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Andrew
Turvey wrote:
>> 1) Is this going to apply to every page?
>
> No. People have been talking about all living person articles, although the
> community may of course decide to roll it out to all articles in the future,
> or indeed have it more restricted.
> Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because
> reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute
protection will still be needed. Will this still be available?
Emily
On Aug 27, 2009, at 5:58 AM,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> This is one reason I asked for an edit filter to be set up to monitor
> how often people add and remove this category and how often vandals do
> this (either intentionally, or as part of another edit). Of course,
> once you have the flagged 'p
2009/8/27 Emily Monroe :
>> Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because
>> reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
> I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute
> protection will still be needed. Will this still be available?
I haven'
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey :
>> 4) Is there any automatic flagging?
>
> I think the idea was all entries with [[Category:Living persons]] would be
> automatically flagged.
No, no. Flagged protection will be applied to - well, articles we
choose to apply it to, in the same way as (semi-)protection i
2009/8/27 Andrew Gray :
> "Full-flagged protection" allows anyone to edit, but only admins
> (*not* "reviewers") to approve; I would assume conventional
> complete-lock will remain for stuff we don't *want* edited, such as
> the main page.
Jimbo has said he'd love to have flagged revisions appli
2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 :
> There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
> {{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
> don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
> stop edit wars.
I think it'll remove a lot of
> The idea is that full protection can be slowly deprecated and any
> page at all can be open to improvement by anyone.
Okay, but what about edit wars, and other cases of "Well, it isn't
*really* vandalism, but people are distracting themselves from being
constructive here."? I envision a fu
- "Carcharoth" wrote:
> > Members of the user group "Reviewer". All Admins will automatically be
> > given reviewer status and all other users will be able to apply for it at
> > [[WP:Request for permissions]]; like rollback there will be a presumed
> > threshold of number of edits and ti
- "Andrew Gray" wrote:
>
> The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find that?
If true, it's interesting. We'll see if after the trial the idea of all-BLPs is
resurrected - I'm sure there'll be people out there w
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey :
> - "Andrew Gray" wrote:
>>
>> The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
>
> I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find
> that?
Inference ;-)
"Thus, it is proposed to enable patrolled revisions, which uses a
passive flag that re
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey :
> - "Andrew Gray" wrote:
>>
>> The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
>
> I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find
> that?
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages that mentions BLPs at all,
other than BLP being one of the p
As I thought the poll was, we were approving a trial limited in all
respects to BLP only. We were also discussing a trial on one thing,
not a simultaneous trial of several different proposals. in trying to
see how a complicated new routine works, we should be testing either
flagged revision or patr
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:37 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not
> having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time.
Oh, interesting point. Imagine a page gets flag-checked every sunday.
On monday, what would be the point of ed
2009/8/27 David Gerard :
> 2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 :
>
>> There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
>> {{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
>> don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
>> stop edit wars.
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton :
> The standard rule is that even admins aren't supposed to edit
> protected pages. They are meant to stay as they are while people
> discuss. I don't see the benefit to full-flagged protection over full
> regular protection. It might be useful for things like widely used
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Turvey <
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> - "Anthony" wrote:
> > From: "Anthony"
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Andrew Turvey <
> andrewrtur...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > 5) Are you supposed to "check" an entire article prior to fl
2009/8/28 David Gerard :
> 2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> The standard rule is that even admins aren't supposed to edit
>> protected pages. They are meant to stay as they are while people
>> discuss. I don't see the benefit to full-flagged protection over full
>> regular protection. It might be use
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> Can someone explain how that works from a technical standpoint? If an
> article is flag-protected and has no reviewed version, what shows up to IP
> users?
It was the most recent version when I originally studied the
extension. That could have changed, though.
_
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/8/28 David Gerard :
>> Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place.
>> Discussion is a poor substitute for editing.
> Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to
> force people into a discussion model which works better in th
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton :
>> 2009/8/28 David Gerard :
>
>>> Protection is a failure
son
-Original Message-
From: David Goodman
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 7:08 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors.
David Goodma
> the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on
> new contributors.
What can we do about that?
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:08 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
> contributors.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:52:48 +0100 (BST), Andrew Turvey wrote:
> See [[Wikipedia:Reviewers]] for more information.
Not to be confused with Wikipedia Review, of course.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: h
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
> > the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on
> > new contributors.
>
> What can we do about that?
>
> Emily
In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management,
30% does the other work, and 60%
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for
>>> a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do
>>> with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think
>>> the lack of visible rew
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:06:45 -0500, Keegan Paul wrote:
> In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management,
> 30% does the other work, and 60% come an go as they please. In a way, it is
> for the best since you actually get care an concern rather than forced
> labor.
Do t
One issue that's bugged me for awhile wrt flagged revisions is whether
we'll have a problem with people saying that [[m:The Wrong Version]]
is still flagged, and theirs hasn't yet been. Granted, if this
becomes an issue, it can be easily enough solved by flagging the
current version (and, if neces
40 matches
Mail list logo
