>On 12/1/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> (better RC patrol features, trust networks to filter RC and watchlists,
>> article validation, etc).
>RC patrol is reaching it's pratical limit. I'm seeing more vandalism
>on my watchlist and no matter how good the people doing it there is
>simply no way for them to know if a large percentage of it is true or
Would it be an idea to make RC patrol organised, i.e. people (admins
or not) sign on for shifts, checking all edits in a given block of
time? Two patrollers for each time period should be enough, three or
four for evenings US time. You do RC patrol - would something like
this make sense?
(I don't know how long the time periods would be - an hour? 30
minutes? 10 minutes?)
[on signed-up RC patrol periods]
>10 minutes. Those who can go longer are free to sign up back to back.
>those of us who tend to get disstracted by seeing things we can fix
>can still make a contribution
You sign up for your 10-minute block, and you can spend an hour or
whatever on it but you will process that 10-minute block. That could
>You All at Wikipedia kick some serious ASS!! I was trying to figure
>out how to site
>a page from your website, when low and behold I found that you not
>only had citation
>information, but you also already had the MLA format ready to go.
>I just wanted to say thank you for making my citation soooo easy!!
I'd suggest we add a "Cite this version" link to the skins, but that
might look like we're positioning ourselves as better than we are ;-)
> > The entire goal of this project is freedom and openness.
That is incorrect. The entire goal of this project is to create the largest, most widely-used, and
best encyclopedia in the world and to give that to everybody on the planet. Everything else, and I
mean *everything* (including our openness and the community itself), is a means to *that* end.
True, Wikipedia is effectively an experiment in openness and radical democracy. But that has never
been the goal or point of it. We have just found that experimenting in those areas have brought us
great success (at least in terms of growth). But the experiment continues and we will need to
adjust as events change. So we must change the way we do things if and/when any aspect of our
experimental methods show a systematic problem that adversely impacts quality.
Is the Seigenthaler incident a symptom of such a systematic problem? One can't use a single
example to prove such a thing, but it still should serve as a wake up call. That call is this: We
are big and popular now. Like it or not a great many people who never edit articles and never
will, trust (or at least use) us as a source. So I think we have an obligation to question our
methods when quality has slipped.
Saying SoGoFixIt when reads outnumber writes by more than 200 to 1 is no longer a valid retort.
However, I agree that killing the goose called Openness that laid the golden egg called Wikipedia
would be a huge mistake. But I think we can and should continue to improve the ways we try to tame
and monitor that beast (better RC patrol features, trust networks to filter RC and watchlists,
article validation, etc).
Openness has been a profitable gravy train for us. Let's not forget that the train is supposed to
be going toward a certain direction.
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
A little sweet something, since only the ones in the back of the room see those.
Chosen extracts from OTRS (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS)
Names of people, places and emails have been removed.
Have a smile. ;-)
You All at Wikipedia kick some serious ASS!! I was trying to figure
out how to site
a page from your website, when low and behold I found that you not
only had citation
information, but you also already had the MLA format ready to go.
I just wanted to say thank you for making my citation soooo easy!!
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!
I wanted to thank you for creating such a wonderful and accessible product,
and would like to suggest to you...
[snip good suggestion]
Thanks again for making me smarter,
my name is [snip] and I'm from Slovakia.
I'm using your site only a few weeks(since I connected to the
Internet),but I think is great! Great idea, great posts, great site,
WIKIPEDIA IS GREAT !!!
For me it's unvaluable source of informations. When I will earn some
money, I will donate.
Stay as you are in present - don't change to one of information-traders.
!!! THANKS FOR HELPING WORLD - THANKS FOR WIKIPEDIA !!!
Subject: Just a thank you
I just wanted someone in your organization to know that I love your website!
I do not know who invented it, but it is most often the website I go to when
I want to know something about a subject. It is a place to start for almost
Hello. I just wish to say how very great such a site as Wikipedia is.
Kudos to all within the organisation, and keep up the great work.
Thank you really.
Dear creators of this website,
I am a 21 year old Political Science major at the University of
[snip]. I would just like to comment on this website, because its
There is so much information, and it is always accurate. I use this website
often when doing research for essays, and the information based on the world
wars is fantastic. Please keep up the good work, because you are making the
lives of students like me much easier.
You people (ie, Wiki
administrators) really are among the most efficient
I've ever dealt with! Keep up the fantastic work, and
have a great weekend!!
M. - (Attorney at Law)
These are just a few I could whip out, but I thought it would help us
remember that we are *also* doing a good job.
>The objection that Seigenthaler is having to Wikipedia is not even to
>the process or to the speed at which we fix vandalism. It is not to
>our current quality, it is not to anything fixable.
It is to some pieces of obvious disinformation if not slander that has been
visible on the Internet. I wonder how many people form their final opinion
on a person or thing based on some piece of disinformation or slander found
>The entire goal of this project is freedom and openness.
The entire goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia. Freedom,
openness, the Wiki thing etc. are means to that end. We are not here to make
political statements, we are here to write the ultimate encyclopedia, and it
is indicative of our confused state of mind that we are so concerned with
quantity of content, processes and (ultimately political) fundamentals
instead of quality of content.
If you want to write encyclopedia, you must attract the best writers and
motivate them. I dare say the present state of our community is not overly
attractive or motivating, because we look like a family that has inherited a
fortune and instead of looking for quality investments sticks it into
make-money-fast schemes. We should get rid of the make-content-fast way of
10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More +++