Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Stable versions live on de.wp

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

erik at wikimedia

May 6, 2008, 11:47 PM

Post #1 of 14 (274 views)
Permalink

Stable versions live on de.wp

FlaggedRevs is now actually live on de.wikipedia.org :-).
Congratulations and many thanks to _everyone_ involved in getting us
to this point. In a nutshell, FlaggedRevs makes it possible to assign
quality tags to individual article revisions, and to alter default
views based on the available tags. In the German Wikipedia
configuration, unregistered users will always see the most recent
version that has been checked for vandalism, if any such version is
available.

Aka hacked up a nice script that shows how many pages have been
"sighted" (basic vandalism check) on the German Wikipedia:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english

Given that FlaggedRevs has just been live for a day or so, a review
rate of 4.41% is quite impressive! Kudos to the de.wp community for
its pioneering role in this important experiment. As a reminder to
other wiki communities, the extension can still be tested in the
Wikimedia Labs at:

http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/

Since the FlaggedRevs extension can be very flexibly configured, it
will be up to individual communities to determine what the best
roll-out strategy is. From our point of view, it's best if communities
self-organize to make decisions around the use, and that they file
requests through

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

which point to a decision on their community to enable the extension.
But, in the least intrusive possible configuration, FlaggedRevs is
essentially a very powerful change patrolling tool, and I could see us
phasing it in like any other new feature.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

sydney.poore at gmail

May 7, 2008, 3:54 AM

Post #2 of 14 (262 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Erik Moeller <erik[at]wikimedia.org> wrote:
> FlaggedRevs is now actually live on de.wikipedia.org :-).
> Congratulations and many thanks to _everyone_ involved in getting us
> to this point. In a nutshell, FlaggedRevs makes it possible to assign
> quality tags to individual article revisions, and to alter default
> views based on the available tags. In the German Wikipedia
> configuration, unregistered users will always see the most recent
> version that has been checked for vandalism, if any such version is
> available.
>
> Aka hacked up a nice script that shows how many pages have been
> "sighted" (basic vandalism check) on the German Wikipedia:
>
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english
>
> Given that FlaggedRevs has just been live for a day or so, a review
> rate of 4.41% is quite impressive! Kudos to the de.wp community for
> its pioneering role in this important experiment. As a reminder to
> other wiki communities, the extension can still be tested in the
> Wikimedia Labs at:
>
> http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/
>
> Since the FlaggedRevs extension can be very flexibly configured, it
> will be up to individual communities to determine what the best
> roll-out strategy is. From our point of view, it's best if communities
> self-organize to make decisions around the use, and that they file
> requests through
>
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
>
> which point to a decision on their community to enable the extension.
> But, in the least intrusive possible configuration, FlaggedRevs is
> essentially a very powerful change patrolling tool, and I could see us
> phasing it in like any other new feature.
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Thank you Erik for this update. This is indeed good news. :-)

Sydney

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

huskyr at gmail

May 7, 2008, 4:19 AM

Post #3 of 14 (262 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

Are there any specific articles on de.wikipedia that are a good
example where the extension is in use?

-- Hay / Husky

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:54 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Erik Moeller <erik[at]wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > FlaggedRevs is now actually live on de.wikipedia.org :-).
> > Congratulations and many thanks to _everyone_ involved in getting us
> > to this point. In a nutshell, FlaggedRevs makes it possible to assign
> > quality tags to individual article revisions, and to alter default
> > views based on the available tags. In the German Wikipedia
> > configuration, unregistered users will always see the most recent
> > version that has been checked for vandalism, if any such version is
> > available.
> >
> > Aka hacked up a nice script that shows how many pages have been
> > "sighted" (basic vandalism check) on the German Wikipedia:
> >
> > http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english
> >
> > Given that FlaggedRevs has just been live for a day or so, a review
> > rate of 4.41% is quite impressive! Kudos to the de.wp community for
> > its pioneering role in this important experiment. As a reminder to
> > other wiki communities, the extension can still be tested in the
> > Wikimedia Labs at:
> >
> > http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/
> >
> > Since the FlaggedRevs extension can be very flexibly configured, it
> > will be up to individual communities to determine what the best
> > roll-out strategy is. From our point of view, it's best if communities
> > self-organize to make decisions around the use, and that they file
> > requests through
> >
> > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
> >
> > which point to a decision on their community to enable the extension.
> > But, in the least intrusive possible configuration, FlaggedRevs is
> > essentially a very powerful change patrolling tool, and I could see us
> > phasing it in like any other new feature.
> > --
> > Erik MÃ¶ller
> > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Thank you Erik for this update. This is indeed good news. :-)
>
> Sydney
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

lars at aronsson

May 7, 2008, 8:03 AM

Post #4 of 14 (260 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

Erik Moeller wrote:

> In a nutshell, FlaggedRevs makes it possible to assign
> quality tags to individual article revisions, and to alter default
> views based on the available tags.

> Aka hacked up a nice script that shows how many pages have been
> "sighted" (basic vandalism check) on the German Wikipedia:
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english
>
> Given that FlaggedRevs has just been live for a day or so, a review
> rate of 4.41% is quite impressive!

Wait now. When FlaggedRevs was first mentioned, the press started
to announce that censorship was being planned for Wikipedia.
This was countered with the explanation that flagging was a more
open regime than page locking. We no longer have to lock pages on
controversial topics, because we can allow free editing as long as
the non-logged-in majority gets to see the flagged/approved
version.

Is it really "impressive" to have this new "soft locking"
mechanism applied to a large number of pages? Wouldn't it be
better to show how few pages were in need of this protection?
And at the same time, to mention how many previously locked pages
have now been unlocked in the name of increased openness?

--
Lars Aronsson (lars[at]aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia at verizon

May 7, 2008, 5:50 PM

Post #5 of 14 (256 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> Aka hacked up a nice script that shows how many pages have been
>> "sighted" (basic vandalism check) on the German Wikipedia:
>> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english
>>
>> Given that FlaggedRevs has just been live for a day or so, a review
>> rate of 4.41% is quite impressive!
>>
> Wait now. When FlaggedRevs was first mentioned, the press started
> to announce that censorship was being planned for Wikipedia.
> This was countered with the explanation that flagging was a more
> open regime than page locking. We no longer have to lock pages on
> controversial topics, because we can allow free editing as long as
> the non-logged-in majority gets to see the flagged/approved
> version.
>
> Is it really "impressive" to have this new "soft locking"
> mechanism applied to a large number of pages? Wouldn't it be
> better to show how few pages were in need of this protection?
> And at the same time, to mention how many previously locked pages
> have now been unlocked in the name of increased openness?
>
Yes, I certainly would support removing as much protection/locking as
possible from articles where a flagged revision is presented as the default.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

magnusmanske at googlemail

May 8, 2008, 2:25 AM

Post #6 of 14 (255 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia[at]verizon.net> wrote:
> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
> > Erik Moeller wrote:
> >
> >> Aka hacked up a nice script that shows how many pages have been
> >> "sighted" (basic vandalism check) on the German Wikipedia:
> >> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english
> >>
> >> Given that FlaggedRevs has just been live for a day or so, a review
> >> rate of 4.41% is quite impressive!
> >>
> > Wait now. When FlaggedRevs was first mentioned, the press started
> > to announce that censorship was being planned for Wikipedia.
> > This was countered with the explanation that flagging was a more
> > open regime than page locking. We no longer have to lock pages on
> > controversial topics, because we can allow free editing as long as
> > the non-logged-in majority gets to see the flagged/approved
> > version.
> >
> > Is it really "impressive" to have this new "soft locking"
> > mechanism applied to a large number of pages? Wouldn't it be
> > better to show how few pages were in need of this protection?
> > And at the same time, to mention how many previously locked pages
> > have now been unlocked in the name of increased openness?
> >
> Yes, I certainly would support removing as much protection/locking as
> possible from articles where a flagged revision is presented as the default.

I think Lars calls FlaggedRevs "soft locking" and doesn't want to
apply it on a large scale.

IMHO FlaggedRevs are much different from protection/locking. The
purpose of FlaggedRevs is to present the uninitiated audience with a
vandalism-free Wikipedia. Applying FlaggedRevs to only a few pages
will not achieve that.

Magnus

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

shimgray at gmail

May 8, 2008, 3:15 AM

Post #7 of 14 (255 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

2008/5/8 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske[at]googlemail.com>:

> I think Lars calls FlaggedRevs "soft locking" and doesn't want to
> apply it on a large scale.
>
> IMHO FlaggedRevs are much different from protection/locking. The
> purpose of FlaggedRevs is to present the uninitiated audience with a
> vandalism-free Wikipedia. Applying FlaggedRevs to only a few pages
> will not achieve that.

I think Lars' worry is (partly) a matter of update rates leading to
locking-through-inertia.

Yes, we can purge through all existing pages and set a flag on them -
indeed, it's an excellent opportunity to do so, and it means that
hopefully all pages will get eyeballed to make them clean.

But! What happens next? If I go off and update a short article (one
which no-one has watchlisted, etc) on de.wp, what mechanism is in
place to flag *that* revision? Is it possible that on non-high-traffic
pages, an "old" revision could remain the newest flagged one for
weeks, months, despite having been superceded?

I can see how this would have the effect of soft-locking - I'd really
like to know how we plan to get round it.

Automatically generated reports of all pages with the most recent edit
"unflagged", sorted by age, perhaps? This'd allow the permitted users
to knock off a few each a day, keep it churning over. The sort of
thing that would appeal to inveterate RC patrollers ;-)

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray[at]dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effeietsanders at gmail

May 8, 2008, 3:50 AM

Post #8 of 14 (254 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

Maybe a weird suggestion, but you could of course look at the Dutch
Wikipedia how they are doing things. As you might recall, nlwikipedia
is one of the few, and at least the largest Wikimedia projects using
MarkAsPatrolled. Which is, to some extent, similar (also about
flagging, but not so much versions, but changes). There are a few
systems and tools in use that might appear to be handy in dewiki as
well.

BR, Lodewijk

2008/5/8, Andrew Gray <shimgray[at]gmail.com>:
> 2008/5/8 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske[at]googlemail.com>:
>
> > I think Lars calls FlaggedRevs "soft locking" and doesn't want to
> > apply it on a large scale.
> >
> > IMHO FlaggedRevs are much different from protection/locking. The
> > purpose of FlaggedRevs is to present the uninitiated audience with a
> > vandalism-free Wikipedia. Applying FlaggedRevs to only a few pages
> > will not achieve that.
>
> I think Lars' worry is (partly) a matter of update rates leading to
> locking-through-inertia.
>
> Yes, we can purge through all existing pages and set a flag on them -
> indeed, it's an excellent opportunity to do so, and it means that
> hopefully all pages will get eyeballed to make them clean.
>
> But! What happens next? If I go off and update a short article (one
> which no-one has watchlisted, etc) on de.wp, what mechanism is in
> place to flag *that* revision? Is it possible that on non-high-traffic
> pages, an "old" revision could remain the newest flagged one for
> weeks, months, despite having been superceded?
>
> I can see how this would have the effect of soft-locking - I'd really
> like to know how we plan to get round it.
>
> Automatically generated reports of all pages with the most recent edit
> "unflagged", sorted by age, perhaps? This'd allow the permitted users
> to knock off a few each a day, keep it churning over. The sort of
> thing that would appeal to inveterate RC patrollers ;-)
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray[at]dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

magnusmanske at googlemail

May 8, 2008, 5:46 AM

Post #9 of 14 (255 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Gray <shimgray[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/5/8 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske[at]googlemail.com>:
>
>
> > I think Lars calls FlaggedRevs "soft locking" and doesn't want to
> > apply it on a large scale.
> >
> > IMHO FlaggedRevs are much different from protection/locking. The
> > purpose of FlaggedRevs is to present the uninitiated audience with a
> > vandalism-free Wikipedia. Applying FlaggedRevs to only a few pages
> > will not achieve that.
>
> I think Lars' worry is (partly) a matter of update rates leading to
> locking-through-inertia.
>
> Yes, we can purge through all existing pages and set a flag on them -
> indeed, it's an excellent opportunity to do so, and it means that
> hopefully all pages will get eyeballed to make them clean.
>
> But! What happens next? If I go off and update a short article (one
> which no-one has watchlisted, etc) on de.wp, what mechanism is in
> place to flag *that* revision? Is it possible that on non-high-traffic
> pages, an "old" revision could remain the newest flagged one for
> weeks, months, despite having been superceded?
>
> I can see how this would have the effect of soft-locking - I'd really
> like to know how we plan to get round it.

A flagged page that is edited by a "trusted" user (that is, one who
can flag pages) is flagged by default. Given the (potentially) huge
number of such users, many pages will have flags updated as a
by-product of normal editing.

> Automatically generated reports of all pages with the most recent edit
> "unflagged", sorted by age, perhaps? This'd allow the permitted users
> to knock off a few each a day, keep it churning over. The sort of
> thing that would appeal to inveterate RC patrollers ;-)

There are a number of special pages for these purposes. There's one
that lists pages with no flagged version; you can even filter by
category!
I think I saw a "sort-by-oldest-flag" page as well.

Of course, the potential for views on this would increase
exponentially once such info is available through the API. Maybe I
should write a toolserver interface until then. Are the respective
tables/fields replicated to the toolserver?

Magnus

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

andrew.gray at dunelm

May 8, 2008, 9:06 AM

Post #10 of 14 (250 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

2008/5/8 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske[at]googlemail.com>:
> > I can see how this would have the effect of soft-locking - I'd really
> > like to know how we plan to get round it.
>
> A flagged page that is edited by a "trusted" user (that is, one who
> can flag pages) is flagged by default. Given the (potentially) huge
> number of such users, many pages will have flags updated as a
> by-product of normal editing.

Excellent. How is trusted status allocated? Is it a positive decision
to set the flag, or a sort of "super-autoconfirmed" status that gets
doled out based on X many edits over Y time period?

One other question: if a revision is flagged in error, can the flag be removed?

> > Automatically generated reports of all pages with the most recent edit
> > "unflagged", sorted by age, perhaps? This'd allow the permitted users
> > to knock off a few each a day, keep it churning over. The sort of
> > thing that would appeal to inveterate RC patrollers ;-)
>
> There are a number of special pages for these purposes. There's one
> that lists pages with no flagged version; you can even filter by
> category!

Magnus, you're wonderful :-)

> I think I saw a "sort-by-oldest-flag" page as well.

This would seem to be the most critical one - a new revision unflagged
for a week is a lot more annoying than one unflagged for fifteen
minutes, especially if the user who contributed it is wondering why it
isn't showing up...

[.Sorry for all the stupid questions, but those of us with nicht
sprechen Deutsche can't play around with it very easily to answer them
ourselves...]

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray[at]dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cbrown1023.ml at gmail

May 8, 2008, 9:22 AM

Post #11 of 14 (249 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray[at]dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
>
> [.Sorry for all the stupid questions, but those of us with nicht
> sprechen Deutsche can't play around with it very easily to answer them
> ourselves...]

You can actually, see http://en.labs.wikimedia.org

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

shagge at freenet

May 8, 2008, 10:38 AM

Post #12 of 14 (249 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

Andrew Gray wrote:
> Excellent. How is trusted status allocated? Is it a positive decision
> to set the flag, or a sort of "super-autoconfirmed" status that gets
> doled out based on X many edits over Y time period?
>
So far the right can be given (and taken) by admins. Some sort of
"super-autoconfirmed" status was active for a while but we (don't ask me
who exactly) asked to inactivate that due to numerous complaints because
the limitation was rather low (30 edits + 30 days + some minor stuff
AFAIR). At the moment (the more or less) consensus is 200 edits (in main
space) and 2 month, that are all users who have the right to vote in
RFAs, so it is at least easy to check cause we have s script for that.
But that limit might change since we have a lot of discussion going on
about that on numerous pages and it is really hard to get an overview. I
think it is almost impossible to go more into detail without spreading
rumors. The 200/2 limit is what admins use at the moment so it might be
safe to say that this would be the upper limit.

Maybe it would be a good idea to give it and the German community some
time (at least a week or two) and see how things work, please be
patient. Flagged revs won't chance the wiki world instantaneously ;-)

Regards,
Sven

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

andreengels at gmail

May 8, 2008, 2:14 PM

Post #13 of 14 (249 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

2008/5/7 Lars Aronsson <lars[at]aronsson.se>:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> In a nutshell, FlaggedRevs makes it possible to assign
>> quality tags to individual article revisions, and to alter default
>> views based on the available tags.
>
>> Aka hacked up a nice script that shows how many pages have been
>> "sighted" (basic vandalism check) on the German Wikipedia:
>> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english
>>
>> Given that FlaggedRevs has just been live for a day or so, a review
>> rate of 4.41% is quite impressive!
>
> Wait now. When FlaggedRevs was first mentioned, the press started
> to announce that censorship was being planned for Wikipedia.
> This was countered with the explanation that flagging was a more
> open regime than page locking. We no longer have to lock pages on
> controversial topics, because we can allow free editing as long as
> the non-logged-in majority gets to see the flagged/approved
> version.
>
> Is it really "impressive" to have this new "soft locking"
> mechanism applied to a large number of pages? Wouldn't it be
> better to show how few pages were in need of this protection?
> And at the same time, to mention how many previously locked pages
> have now been unlocked in the name of increased openness?

No, I don't think so. Having a flag on a page is just a way of saying
"this version is ok". Would it not be much better to have a version
that is 'ok' for ALL pages rather than just the controversial ones?
Would it really be a good thing to say "Only these few pages have
versions that are okay, we have no idea about the others, but we see
no reason to think they're not okay?"

--
Andre Engels, andreengels[at]gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rupert.thurner at wikimedia

Jun 8, 2008, 5:03 AM

Post #14 of 14 (108 views)
Permalink

Re: Stable versions live on de.wp [In reply to]

it seems that people enter articles into quality assurance more often
than before having the flags - which at the end leads to higher
quality for these articles. but i am unsure if this feeling can be
better prooved somehow.

one thing seems to be a bug: with ff3 on linux i always get the
flagged revision and not the most current one, even if i unchecked
"show flagged revision" in the preferences.

rupert.

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM, THURNER rupert
<thurner.rupert[at]redleo.org> wrote:
> it seems that people enter articles into quality assurance more often
> than before having the flags - which at the end leads to higher
> quality for these articles. but i am unsure if this feeling can be
> better prooved somehow.
>
> one thing seems to be a bug: with ff3 on linux i always get the
> flagged revision and not the most current one, even if i unchecked
> "show flagged revision" in the preferences.
>
> rupert.
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Andre Engels <andreengels[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/5/7 Lars Aronsson <lars[at]aronsson.se>:
>>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>>
>>>> In a nutshell, FlaggedRevs makes it possible to assign
>>>> quality tags to individual article revisions, and to alter default
>>>> views based on the available tags.
>>>
>>>> Aka hacked up a nice script that shows how many pages have been
>>>> "sighted" (basic vandalism check) on the German Wikipedia:
>>>> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english
>>>>
>>>> Given that FlaggedRevs has just been live for a day or so, a review
>>>> rate of 4.41% is quite impressive!
>>>
>>> Wait now. When FlaggedRevs was first mentioned, the press started
>>> to announce that censorship was being planned for Wikipedia.
>>> This was countered with the explanation that flagging was a more
>>> open regime than page locking. We no longer have to lock pages on
>>> controversial topics, because we can allow free editing as long as
>>> the non-logged-in majority gets to see the flagged/approved
>>> version.
>>>
>>> Is it really "impressive" to have this new "soft locking"
>>> mechanism applied to a large number of pages? Wouldn't it be
>>> better to show how few pages were in need of this protection?
>>> And at the same time, to mention how many previously locked pages
>>> have now been unlocked in the name of increased openness?
>>
>> No, I don't think so. Having a flag on a page is just a way of saying
>> "this version is ok". Would it not be much better to have a version
>> that is 'ok' for ALL pages rather than just the controversial ones?
>> Would it really be a good thing to say "Only these few pages have
>> versions that are okay, we have no idea about the others, but we see
>> no reason to think they're not okay?"
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andre Engels, andreengels[at]gmail.com
>> ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com