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 is at least X minutes old.
We could also allow a time window (even 30 minutes) before edits went live > after one is done editing (using above Ajax mechanism to track when editor > open), experienced editors would not need to swoop in quite so fast on the > work of new users, and the whole editing atmosphere would be more relaxed > and welcoming. > I think the challenge with drafts visible only to the user is that they are very likely to have a conflict and have to merge changes if they wait too long between starting the draft and later committing it. On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Luca de Alfaro <l...@dealfaro.com> wrote: > 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 > triggering the interest of editors and the consequent conflicts, then save > their changes. > > Luca > > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Scott Hale <computermacgy...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Luca de Alfaro <l...@dealfaro.com> >> 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 someone aggressively vetting/refining my edits while I am still >>> doing them. I feel welcome there. >>> >>> To make Wikipedia more welcoming, we could do a few things. >>> >>> We could allow users to save drafts. In this way, people could work for >>> a while at their own pace, and then publish the changes. Currently, saving >>> is the only way to avoid risking losing changes, but it has the very >>> undesired effect of inviting editors/vetters to the page before one is >>> really done. >>> >>> We could also allow a time window (even 30 minutes) before edits went >>> live after one is done editing (using above Ajax mechanism to track when >>> editor open), experienced editors would not need to swoop in quite so fast >>> on the work of new users, and the whole editing atmosphere would be more >>> relaxed and welcoming. >>> >>> The fact is that the Wikipedia editor, with its lack of ability to save >>> drafts, poor merging, and swooping editors, feels incredibly outdated and >>> unwelcoming - downright aggressive - to anyone used to WordPress / Google >>> Docs / Blogger / ... >>> >>> Luca >>> >>> >> >> The technology exists to do this---[[:en:Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions]]. >> The challenge is that many existing users don't want flagged revisions on >> by default. >> >> And that is the fundamental flaw with this whole email thread. The >> question needing to be answered isn't "what increases new user retention". >> The real question is "what increases new user retention and is acceptable >> to the most active/helpful existing users". The second question is much >> harder than the first. >> >> >> >> >> > -- Scott Hale Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford http://www.scotthale.net/ scott.h...@oii.ox.ac.uk
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
