The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we no longer keep track of, the absolutely lousy articles people often pass over without notice, or with just a tag, when a delete nomination is what is needed, and of course the over-eager or incorrect nominations for deletion. I would say of the pages actually checked, about 20% are being done wrong in one way or another--or perhaps it's 10%. It's still over a hundred pages a day.
If enWikipedia has only 4,000 active editors, and we don't do better at this than, we are going to keep up with only a very few articles. The plan will work , though, for the most watched articles, fortunately where they are needed, because that's the ones where people people catch errors now. In other words, as a substitute for semi-protection for most semi'd pages, not flagging a significant number of pages addition to them. It won't do a thing to reduce the gross vandalism that now gets uncaught for hours. It might provide a clearer focus on the ones that get caught in a few minutes, and keep the vandalism off them for those few minutes. But that's all that can be expected of it David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Surreptitiousness > <surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Gregory Maxwell wrote: >>> >>> This is another area where the UI can have a real impact: It's >>> important the it not overstate the level of review that is occurring. >>> Right now flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org is calling the levels >>> "Draft" "Checked" and "quality", but this is under active discussion. >> Quality might be pushing it then. I'd suggest "article", but I can't >> work out how "Checked" fits in. Maybe "Documented" would work better? > > Quality is just the default. > > "Draft"(unflagged) "Checked" "Reviewed", perhaps? > > AFAIK there has been no effort on enwp to figure out what is necessary > and sufficient for a higher grade of flagging, I think we generally > know what the lowest grade means: It's stuff that you think probably > won't be reverted, or some similar low bar. > > I think that it may not be useful to worry about the definition of the > higher grade of flagging until more people are comfortable with how > the feature works in practice. Baby steps. > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l