But what is the relative rate of new edits between the de and en WPs? On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Risker, > > This is a rather belated response to some points you raised earlier about > pending changes. > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Having been very involved in the trial, I would not re-enable the use of >> Pending Changes until significant changes to the proposed policy are made. >> Most of the problems that were encountered in the trial are left completely >> unaddressed. There should be a prohibition on it being used for articles >> larger than 55K - after that point, too many people crashed when trying to >> review. >> > > > That's never happened to me in de:WP, so I think it's a software problem > that is fixable (and seems to have been fixed long ago in de:WP, if they > ever had it). > > > >> There should be a prohibition on its use for articles that are moving >> rapidly; contrary to what some thought, pending changes was not really >> effective for current events articles, because the proposed edits were >> being overwritten before anyone even reviewed them; and because there is no >> way to review a single pending change at a time (instead of ALL pending >> changes), it is inevitable that either bad edits will be accepted or good >> edits rejected. >> > > > It could be a problem for very fast-moving articles - like an edit a > minute, in response to some news event. But I know that the Germans manage, > and I have never seen it raised as a problem there. The worst thing that > could happen is that IPs make changes which never see the light of day, > whereas in en:WP they would have been visible to the public briefly before > being overwritten. In either case the solution is to slow down. > > I haven't found reviewing several unsighted edits a huge problem in de:WP – > yes, it can be a pain if the 1st, 3rd and 5th edits were good, and the 2nd > and 4th weren't, but that situation is relatively rare. On the few > occasions where it has happened to me, I opened a second window with the > last sighted version and manually transferred the good changes. It's doable. > > > >> I'd keep pending changes off of biographical articles that have a history >> of attracting vandalism or excessive vitriol or fandom. Using pending >> changes for these articles effectively enshrines the >> otherwise-never-existing vandalism into the history of the article. We saw >> this in quite a few highly visible biographies. >> > > > It's perfectly possible to have semi-protection in addition to pending > changes. The Germans have pending changes as default on all articles, but > still use semi-protection or full protection alongside whenever there is IP > vandalism, or an edit war. > > > >> Everyone needs to be clear what exactly the role of the reviewer is; this >> created a considerable amount of strife during the trial. I have been >> given various interpretations of the manner in which flagged revisions is >> used on German Wikipedia, so do not want to characterize their policies and >> practices; however, in the absence of good quality, confirmed information >> on their processes, it's not appropriate to say "let's do it like they do". >> > > > The German Wikipedia has passive and active reviewers. The main rules given > at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sichten are as follows: > > Passive reviewers autoreview their own edits, but can't review others'. > Passive reviewing rights are automatically given to users who have been > registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 150 article edits > (or 50 article edits subsequently approved by a reviewer). > > Active reviewer status (i.e. the right to approve others' edits) is > automatically conferred on users who have been registered for 60 days and > have made 300 article edits (or 200 article edits subsequently approved by > a reviewer). > > There are some additional details (no blocks, use of edit summaries for at > least, work spread out over a number of different articles, etc.), but > these are secondary. > > The system works and keeps out a lot of nonsense. The only thing I would > change is that I would set a higher standard for users wanting to approve > BLP changes. > > Cheers, > Andreas > > > >> Until it's clear what the role of the reviewer is, editors have no way to >> know whether or not they are performing in the manner that the community >> expects. Further, there is no guarantee that reviewer permissions won't be >> removed for reasons that have nothing to do with the act of reviewing. >> >> The proposed policy essentially says " you can use this instead of >> semi-protection", but it does not change the criteria for protection in any >> way. Therefore, the articles you propose to be covered by pending changes >> aren't eligible. What if you think something should be under PC, and >> another admin comes along and says "hold on, doesn't meet the policy, off >> it comes"? Right now, decisions about protections are rarely the subject >> of inter-admin disagreement. Is that going to change? If so, who wins? >> >> The RFC started from the wrong place. It should have been focused on what >> kind of PC policy we would want to have if we wanted to have one. I do see >> potential uses for pending changes, but I do not support the policy that is >> being put forward. >> <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
-- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l