The below definitely are interesting issues which deserve their own
thread. I kept reading the proposals but had not run into the
implementation very often.
On 12/30/2014 3:24 PM, Risker wrote:
Keep in mind that the majority of Wikimedians (i.e.,
people making
edits on the 900+ sites hosted by the WMF) do so without registering
an account. The existence of these projects was entirely dependent on
that fact in the early days (and in younger and smaller projects,
still is). I recall seeing data indicating that over 90% of
Wikimedians made their first edits without creating an account, and
I'll wager the same is true for the majority of people on this list,
at least anyone who joined before about 2009. However, as time has
progressed, it's become increasingly difficult to get edits accepted
from unregistered editors: some projects have flagged revisions for
every single edit, for example, which means that an edit by an IP
isn't even visible until it's been "approved" - which can sometimes
take weeks;
**Wikiprojects themselves can do it? What percentage of projects do it
and articles covered?
others have groups of 'recent changes
patrollers' that revert almost
all edits by unregistered users ("anti-vandalism patrol") whether or
not the content is reasonable or even good.
**I somehow ended up as one on the
"devolution" article and dealt with
it; what happens when all patrollers for an article stop watching for
whatever reason?
A while back, I decided to do some minor copy edits
without logging
in, and was within a whisker of getting blocked for fixing typos - 70%
of my edits were reverted, even though 100% of them were correct.
**Which of the
above systems did this or usual editing practices from
questionable editors?
Does this show that WMF is more interested in looking for techno-fixes
to the problems of vandalism or crappy editing by inexperienced editors?
That projects are being dominated by individuals, possibly for personal
reasons or POV reasons?
I think it was Wikipediocracy that alleged they are putting most of
their $50 million a year into tech. With a little for research, but
nothing to support editors.
REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS do help out their writers. Why not hire a) mentors
to help new editors out, including dealing with civility issues, at
least showing them where to go or asking uncivil jerks to lay off and b)
mediators for more experienced editors having content disputes.
Maybe that's another theme to guilt trip WMF about - being a REAL
encyclopedia and not just a technopolis (or whatever negative term best
describes whatever it is they are doing.)
CM