Yes, drafts visible only to the user are different. I was thinking of
flagged revisions in reference to your idea that edits would first go live
only after a set period of time. This is basically flagged revisions with a
trivial extension that the flagged revision always be the latest revision
that is at least X minutes old.
We could also allow a time window (even 30 minutes) before edits went live
after one is done editing (using above Ajax mechanism
to track when editor
open), experienced editors would not need to swoop in quite so fast on the
work of new users, and the whole editing atmosphere would be more relaxed
and welcoming.
I think the challenge with drafts visible only to the user is that they are
very likely to have a conflict and have to merge changes if they wait too
long between starting the draft and later committing it.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Luca de Alfaro <luca(a)dealfaro.com> wrote:
Flagged revisions is different though, as it requires
"trusted" editors to
flag things as approved. I am simply advocating the ability to save drafts
visible only to oneself before "publishing" a change. WordPress, Blogger,
etc have it. And so newcomers could edit to their heart content, without
triggering the interest of editors and the consequent conflicts, then save
their changes.
Luca
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Scott Hale <computermacgyver(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Luca de Alfaro
<luca(a)dealfaro.com>
wrote:
Better merging would be welcome. But also less
aggressive
editing/policing.
When I edit openstreetmap I have a better overall experience: the edits
may or may not go live immediately, but I don't have the impression that
there is someone aggressively vetting/refining my edits while I am still
doing them. I feel welcome there.
To make Wikipedia more welcoming, we could do a few things.
We could allow users to save drafts. In this way, people could work for
a while at their own pace, and then publish the changes. Currently, saving
is the only way to avoid risking losing changes, but it has the very
undesired effect of inviting editors/vetters to the page before one is
really done.
We could also allow a time window (even 30 minutes) before edits went
live after one is done editing (using above Ajax mechanism to track when
editor open), experienced editors would not need to swoop in quite so fast
on the work of new users, and the whole editing atmosphere would be more
relaxed and welcoming.
The fact is that the Wikipedia editor, with its lack of ability to save
drafts, poor merging, and swooping editors, feels incredibly outdated and
unwelcoming - downright aggressive - to anyone used to WordPress / Google
Docs / Blogger / ...
Luca
The technology exists to do this---[[:en:Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions]].
The challenge is that many existing users don't want flagged revisions on
by default.
And that is the fundamental flaw with this whole email thread. The
question needing to be answered isn't "what increases new user retention".
The real question is "what increases new user retention and is acceptable
to the most active/helpful existing users". The second question is much
harder than the first.
--
Scott Hale
Oxford Internet Institute
University of Oxford
http://www.scotthale.net/
scott.hale(a)oii.ox.ac.uk