[Wikiquality-l] default views

[Aaron Schulz]

I may be able to use a similar hook call like a function in flaggedrevs now to make it so that when a user edits a page where the stable is the default, it redirects them to the page with the stable=0 url, so that they can see their edits, rather than the stable version.

-Aaron Schulz

> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:37:46 -0400
> From: gmaxwell at gmail.com
> To: wikiquality-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] default views
> 
> On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Usability wise that seems tricky. Imagine making an edit, then passing
> > the link on, only to find that both viewers see different things.
> 
> That can mostly be resolved by sending the user to a static revision
> url after saving, I suppose.
> 
> Since the pages can be changed users will either need to have some
> awareness of the process or they will be confused. For example, their
> change could be reverted or the purge could be missed causing their
> anonymous browsing / cookieless friend to view a slightly stale page.
> 
> I just think it's better to make the possibly confusing cases as
> infrequent as possible.
> 
> > Also, one benefit of having a different default view is to
> > disincentivize vandalism -- if the user mistakenly _believes_ their
> > edit has taken effect, vandalism is not disincentivized.
> 
> I'm not sure we understand the mechenism of vandalism well enough to
> know without measement.  Certantly expirenced/repeat/frequent vandals
> will observe the futility, but I don't think we know what proportion
> of vandals fit that profile.
> 
> > Perhaps it is solvable with reasonably clear UI messages. But I'm not
> > sure a simple "Your edit has been submitted and will be shown to all
> > readers pending review" message isn't sufficient.
> 
> I think it might be, but really we're just guessing.
> 
> > > But at the end we don't need to worry about the worries: Instead we
> > > can simply use objective measurements. If we turn on users defaulting
> > > to the flagged revisions on ten thousand well distributed articles, we
> > > can then track the performance.
> >
> > It would probably be least controversial to immediately do it on all
> > articles that are currently semi-protected. Can you quickly get the
> > number of those?
> 
> I agree that semied pages are probably uncontroversial.
> 
> But they are  not as useful for some sorts of measurments because we
> won't be able to measure how much default sighted slows editing. There
> also aren't very many of them.
> 
> Protection settings according to toolserver (enwp data is two weeks old):
> 
>  project  page restrictions       number of NS0 non-redirect pages
> | enwiki |                                       | 2026122 |
> | enwiki | move=:edit=                           |     999 |
> | enwiki | edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed |     196 |
> | enwiki | move=sysop                            |      97 |
> | enwiki | edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop         |      17 |
> | enwiki | edit=sysop:move=sysop                 |       6 |
> | enwiki | move=autoconfirmed                    |       5 |
> 
> | dewiki |                                       | 658385 |
> | dewiki | edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed |   1937 |
> | dewiki | move=:edit=                           |    607 |
> | dewiki | move=sysop                            |     75 |
> | dewiki | edit=sysop:move=sysop                 |     13 |
> | dewiki | edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop         |     10 |
> | dewiki | move=autoconfirmed                    |      4 |
> | dewiki | move=sysop:edit=sysop                 |      2 |
> 
> 
> > It would be slightly more controversial to do on the featured & good articles.
> 
> In addition to any large classes, I think it would be useful to also
> apply it to some number of pages quasi-randomly selected. Probably
> something around 10000 pages would make sense.  We could set a study
> end date and undo the setting at that point and also gather data on
> page activity after the change is removed.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
> Wikiquality-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l

_________________________________________________________________
Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/attachments/20071009/bb5898db/attachment.htm