On 8/27/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> Seriously, though, I'm still looking for a response on my request for
> details when you said "analysis has been done, results will be
> published" regarding the initial disabling of anon page creation. Who
> did the analysis? Or did you answer in a different thread that I haven't
> been reading? I know I'm being a hardass about this, but so far this has
> been the only lead I'm aware of indicating that any such analysis might
> actually be taking place.
I'd lost that thread, which is why I hadn't replied.
It's not really my place to talk about papers being written by others,
which is why I hadn't answered in more detail.
You're not being a hardass... I'm just not the right person to ask,
the only research I've done is informal subjective measurements (which
I posted about months ago), I've also posted the link to the new
articles over time which was a part of that informal research.
[[NBER]] presented at Wikimania about their statistical research into
Wikipedia editing, and I have worked with them some to help with
collecting data for their work. One of the researchers working on the
subject is currently off the net, but I'll ping the other person (Eric
Garrison) and find out what the status of his research is...
I found it amusing that everyone in the thread has assumed that I'm
arguing against turning back on anon page creation, because that is
certantly not my position. I've only argued that we shouldn't act
without evidence when evidence is so easy to obtain.
If you don't believe me that people are working on this, feel free to
do your own research it's not like you need anyone's permission. If
you need help getting data in a convenient form and can clearly
articulate what data you need, please contact me... I'll be glad to
help.
Sorry to post such an incredibly lame off topic. Over the last week,
the amount of spam getting through gmail's filters has gone up hugely
for me. It's coming in through the 5 or so email addresses I have that
forward to the same account in equal measure, so I can't blame one
email address suddenly getting extra exposure. Has anyone else
experienced like this? I was previously getting around 1 spam a day
making it through the filter, but now it's like 10 or even more per
day. Lots of it is a weird, right-justified format, all nonsense text
(jumbled quotations from something or other) whose purpose I can't
divine...
Thanks anyone for any observations, comments etc.
Steve
[User:Jon_Awbrey]] has moved [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering]] to
[[Wikipedia:WikiCaviling]], on the grounds that he claims the
original title is defamatory to lawyers. However, politically-
incorrect or not, "Wikilawyering" is the actual terminology that has
been in use on Wikipedia's discussion areas; "WikiCaviling" is an
ugly neologism with no support that I know of. Page titles should
reflect actual usage instead of attempting to impose political
correctness.
--
Dan
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
It seems that AP, the news agency that almost anyone can edit, has
introduced a Special:Recentchanges feature for Wikipedia edits.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/15381771.htm
Associated Press
MILWAUKEE - A Wikipedia article about the Lake Express ferry has been
altered repeatedly to emphasize the vessel's cancellations, delays,
mechanical problems and passengers' seasickness, a newspaper reported
Monday.
oh wait, CNN is having breaking news. Someone has created a new
article on Wikipedia...
Came across the following, describing an apparent real-world
inter-Ferry-system conflict which may have spilled over into
Wikipedia...
Note: I have not had a chance to research the articles in depth yet,
so I take no responsibility for the accuracy of any of the claims
about WP made in the Slashdot article or linked articles...
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/28/181223
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
This article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5286458.stm) got my
concern. Editorial control on the Wikipedia? What exactly have I missed?
--
Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
G'day Bryan,
> Seriously, though, I'm still looking for a response on my request for
> details when you said "analysis has been done, results will be
> published" regarding the initial disabling of anon page creation. Who
> did the analysis? Or did you answer in a different thread that I
> haven't been reading? I know I'm being a hardass about this, but so
> far this has been the only lead I'm aware of indicating that any such
> analysis might actually be taking place.
While there are aspects of dear old Gregory I would undoubtedly like to
reflect (being able to take a decent fscking photograph for a start), we
are, in fact, different people, and would both prefer not to be confused!
Cheers,
--
Mark Gallagher
"But the visibility was very poor, and you yourself admit that you were
being struck by thunderbolts all the time, which must have distracted
your attention, so it is more than probable you were mistaken."
- Esmond Haddock, /The Mating Season/
>
> As I recall, we were happy when the proposed mechanism had a
> ten-minute or so time out mechanism, so it didn't turn into a ''de
> facto'' anon-edits-must-be-approved rather than an anti-vandalism
> mechanism, and to assure the anon that yes, the edit would show up
> soon. The de system seems to differ from the one we discussed.
>
Before I saw this post, I was about to counter-propose just that: a simple
delay-to-live timer. Something similar could apply to page creation.
This happens in live TV broadcasting sometimes (I'm thinking of Don Cherry):
there's actually a few seconds delay to allow the control room to step in.
This, rather than some trust mechanism which, technical issues and objections to
unnecessary complexity and hierarchy aside, our experience suggests would very
quickly develop a long backlog for approval. AfC did, and it was only for page
creation, and there was no special trust class required to clear the backlog.
Daniel Mehkeri
> But I think that discussion should mainly wait until (a) an implementation
> exists (right now, it's not ready for prime time; Brion has some more work to
> do on it) and (b) we have some data from the Germans on what does and
> doesn't work in their community, so we can not waste time discussing in a
> vacuum.
Then I wonder what pressure and temperature the Germans are in? Surely at this
point they aren't in any less of a vacuum than we are, but it sounds like they
saw fit to discuss it.
This post was sent under a delay-to-live timer to Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia that anyone can
[...time passes...]
edit.
Cheers,
Dan