On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
>> I see a lot of these patrolling recent changes in Huggle. I look at
>> the user's other contribs and provided I can find just one in the same
>> day where he's blanked the page and written "SUCK MY ASS!!!" I'll
>> revert the numeric change and
Carcharoth wrote:
> ...I've seen cases of HUGGLE and TWINKLE users reverting a
> vandalised page to a still-vandalised state, and no-one else checking,
> and such vandalised pages (now with the "legitimacy" of a revert
> from an "approved" user) staying in that state for months.
Indeed. And I've
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
>
>>> One of my pet hates: when an IP changes a figure in in infobox or
>>> somewhere in article, with no comment, and no source. I've heard
>>> reports of people doing this as sport, just to b
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
>> One of my pet hates: when an IP changes a figure in in infobox or
>> somewhere in article, with no comment, and no source. I've heard
>> reports of people doing this as sport, just to be annoying, but in my
>> experience, they're often right.
On 19/08/2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:04 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> It can be problematic. I frequently edit as an IP when I'm at another
>> machine and can't be bothered logging in. The unexplained reversion
>> rate is *much* higher than when I edit logged-in, even thoug
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:04 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> It can be problematic. I frequently edit as an IP when I'm at another
> machine and can't be bothered logging in. The unexplained reversion
> rate is *much* higher than when I edit logged-in, even though the
> edits are exactly the same sort of
2009/8/17 Steve Bennett :
> Summary: With the encyclopaedia being bigger and more complete, it's
> less likely that a "onesie"'s edit is worth keeping.
> The 1% reversion rate for experienced editors was also interesting. I
> doubt my edits get reverted at anything like that high a rate.
It can
Steve Bennett wrote:
> The 1% reversion rate for experienced editors was also interesting. I
> doubt my edits get reverted at anything like that high a rate.
>
Yes, the mean here might tell less than the median. (I.e. you'd expect
to see very different figures for controversial and non-controve
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
"Meanwhile, for those who did not invest vast amounts of time in
editing, the experience was very different. "For editors that make
between two and nine e
/13/09, Ian Woollard wrote:
> From: Ian Woollard
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedia approaches its limits" - Technology
> Guardian
> To: charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com, "English Wikipedia"
>
> Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 11:08 AM
> The '
Maybe we should stop reverting vandalism. It would improve our statistics,
after all.
-Luna
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sage Ross wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Charles
> Matthews wrote:
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
>>
>> Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
>> commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
>
> Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
> commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents. Somewhere in the
> middle is
The 'limit' that's being reached is the article count; so reverts
aren't the question.
The real question is whether the AFD process is working correctly,
particularly for new articles, now that the low-hanging fruit is gone.
I've personally seen several of my referenced articles that in all
hones
- "Charles Matthews" wrote:
> From: "Charles Matthews"
> is the volume of reversions
> indicative of good gatekeeping (poor edits to popular and well-developed
> articles have little chance of sticking), or bad gatekeeping
> (established editors assert ownership)? Stats from 2007 and 20
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents. Somewhere in the
middle is a debate struggling to get out: is the volume of reversions
in
16 matches
Mail list logo
