Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 11/09/2009, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> It's getting the world to understand that it's a work in progress, I
>> suppose.
>>
> Maybe we need to add (beta) to the front page or something?
>
> I mean, that's what it is, and is likely to continue to be; for
> perhaps up t
On 11/09/2009, David Gerard wrote:
> I think the shock was realising this is the product. Yes, that live
> working draft is the actual product. And this may actually be a
> feature.
> It's getting the world to understand that it's a work in progress, I
> suppose.
Maybe we need to add (beta) to t
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/9/11 Surreptitiousness :
>
> Flaged revs all through would separate "draft" and "public" copies,
> but at the expense of the motivational effects of the working draft
> being live and public.
>
> There is no "finished". It's an eternal present.
>
>> I tend
>> to find I
Surreptitiousness wrote:
> Charles Matthews wrote:
>> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>> I'd put it this way: the business of "flagged revisions" indicates
>> a feeling that (for a physical book) would be that we have a "first
>> draft", and should proceed editorially rather than magpie-fashion.
>>
2009/9/11 Surreptitiousness :
> Yes, the article will no longer be a working draft.
> Blimey, this really is a big change. Now I understand why I saw you on
> newsnight. Hmmm.
Yeah. I think it was on Newsnight because of journalistic August, but
it's big news in the Wikipedia editing communit
In simplest terms, the idea is "wouldn't it be nice if edits that weren't
even /plausibly/ valid would get filtered out and not shown to the world as
our work and as encyclopedia content?"
The other idea is "We have tens of thousands of well meaning editors, can we
ask users who have shown they ca
David Gerard wrote:
> I think the shock was realising this is the product. Yes, that live
> working draft is the actual product. And this may actually be a
> feature.
>
> Distributions of Wikipedia content turn out to be secondary - the
> working site turns out to be the actual product.
>
> Flaged
2009/9/11 Surreptitiousness :
> I think that depends upon your standards. From my perspective, when you
> consider we're staffed by a bunch of volunteers who usually have to
> learn about the subject before they can write about it, we ain't doing
> bad. I think what a lot of frustration and drama
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Surreptitiousness
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Mind, it could be an idea to have as standard a message posted to
>> relevant WikiProjects when an article is up for FA.
>>
>
> There is already an expectation that this is done, as far as I know.
>
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Surreptitiousness
wrote:
> Mind, it could be an idea to have as standard a message posted to
> relevant WikiProjects when an article is up for FA.
There is already an expectation that this is done, as far as I know.
And when it is not done, someone usually does
Charles Matthews wrote:
> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>
> I'd put it this way: the business of "flagged revisions" indicates a
> feeling that (for a physical book) would be that we have a "first
> draft", and should proceed editorially rather than magpie-fashion.
>
Yeah, that's kind of where I
Surreptitiousness wrote:
> Realistically, I think we're really
> only approaching the end of the middle of the initial stage. By which I
> mean the initial stage is to get as much written about as much as we can
> as possible.
I'd put it this way: the business of "flagged revisions" indicates
Carcharoth wrote:
> Actually, I think people end up picking the articles they are most
> interested in, or which have the most potential. The vast majority or
> article languish unless people systematically work through them. As an
> example, look at how successful the plan to bring all the WP:CORE
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Surreptitiousness
wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>> I have a list of 12 articles that are either unassessed or need
>> re-assessing, if anyone is interested in using that as the basis of a
>> discussion about ratings. The articles all have one thing in common,
>> in
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Surreptitiousness
> wrote:
>
>> Emily Monroe wrote:
>>
>>> And yet it's B-Class.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> B-Class just means it is better than C-Class, unless the project is not
>> using C-Class, which means it is just better than a start.
15 matches
Mail list logo
