Hi all, Wikipedia started out with the idea that the person reading the article should be helping to fix it. But we're really moving further and further away from that, and defining a "Wikipedia community" that works on the articles, and end users who just read them. For example, we now tend to put many templates on the talk page (like "image requested") rather than on the article itself. Similarly, metacomments like "This section is not complete" are often put in HTML comments, or just on the talk page, rather than being more visible.
Would anyone like to see this trend reversed? My girlfriend remarked tonight that she had found two different articles on the same topic, and was annoyed by it. I felt like saying, "why didn't you suggest a merge?" But then realised that the steps involved are totally unrealistic for the average passer by: edit the article, add "{{mergefrom|...}}" to that article, then do the same for the other article (but with "mergeto", then go and add your reasoning to the talk page!
My suggestion: Get past the simplistic idea that since anyone can "edit" any page, anyone can "fix" any article. They're not the same. More concretely:
1) Put a big "Does this article need fixing?" link in a prominent place on each article (perhaps only for logged-out users or newbies?) 2) Upon clicking it, present a list of common problems: Plagiarism, factual error, duplicate article, incorrect name for article, missing information... 3) Explain that the user can edit it themselves *if they're interested*, or make it *very* easy for them to report the problem so more experienced Wikipedians can fix it. "So fix it" is a fine response from one oldbie to another - but not to a newbie.
Anyone agree with me here? Or have we passed the point where we actively attempt to engage passers by to help us improve quality?
Steve
On 19/11/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- Put a big "Does this article need fixing?" link in a prominent
place on each article (perhaps only for logged-out users or newbies?)
I like that. I like that a lot.
- d.
On 19/11/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- Put a big "Does this article need fixing?" link in a prominent
place on each article (perhaps only for logged-out users or newbies?) 2) Upon clicking it, present a list of common problems: Plagiarism, factual error, duplicate article, incorrect name for article, missing information... 3) Explain that the user can edit it themselves *if they're interested*, or make it *very* easy for them to report the problem so more experienced Wikipedians can fix it. "So fix it" is a fine response from one oldbie to another - but not to a newbie.
I've toyed in the past with the idea of a big red "there is a problem" button, which would spawn a window where they could leave a comment (if desired) and cause the page to be be flagged somewhere or other for attention - possibly via an OTRS-like system.
This is a similar idea, and I think it's worth trying out.
We could put a link like this up in the Sitenotice/Anonnotice so it'll easily be available on every article.
On 11/19/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/11/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- Put a big "Does this article need fixing?" link in a prominent
place on each article (perhaps only for logged-out users or newbies?) 2) Upon clicking it, present a list of common problems: Plagiarism, factual error, duplicate article, incorrect name for article, missing information... 3) Explain that the user can edit it themselves *if they're interested*, or make it *very* easy for them to report the problem so more experienced Wikipedians can fix it. "So fix it" is a fine response from one oldbie to another - but not to a newbie.
I've toyed in the past with the idea of a big red "there is a problem" button, which would spawn a window where they could leave a comment (if desired) and cause the page to be be flagged somewhere or other for attention - possibly via an OTRS-like system.
This is a similar idea, and I think it's worth trying out.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 19/11/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
We could put a link like this up in the Sitenotice/Anonnotice so it'll easily be available on every article.
How about a tab? I'm not sure how we'd reduce "Is there a problem?" to one word though.
On 11/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
How about a tab? I'm not sure how we'd reduce "Is there a problem?" to one word though.
Tabs are IMHO kind of invisible. People I've spoken to have never noticed them before. Everyone's used Wikipedia. Not many realise there is a "History" tab, for instance. I'm thinking a big green friendly bubble.
Steve
On 11/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
How about a tab? I'm not sure how we'd reduce "Is there a problem?" to one word though.
Tabs are IMHO kind of invisible. People I've spoken to have never noticed them before. Everyone's used Wikipedia. Not many realise there is a "History" tab, for instance. I'm thinking a big green friendly bubble.
Would dissrupt reading experence. A red outlined tab perhaps?
Or something very visible in the sitenotice?
Anyways, if we want to churn this out as quickly as possible, what we'd need to do is have a page set up that features a table listing common problems and their remedies. At the right edge of the table would be a link to report the problem (akin to addnewsection) where there would be a boilerplate message and the person merely has to fill in the blanks.
This page would have to be designed with the assumption that people will report things once and not come back onto that page (unless they're reporting more stuff).
On 11/19/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
How about a tab? I'm not sure how we'd reduce "Is there a problem?" to one word though.
Tabs are IMHO kind of invisible. People I've spoken to have never noticed them before. Everyone's used Wikipedia. Not many realise there is a "History" tab, for instance. I'm thinking a big green friendly bubble.
Would dissrupt reading experence. A red outlined tab perhaps?
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
This page would have to be designed with the assumption that people will report things once and not come back onto that page (unless they're reporting more stuff).
You mean, assuming that they will report a problem, then not be available to follow it up? I think that's a fair assumption for most anons. Look at WP:AFC for proof.
Steve
On 11/20/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
How about a tab? I'm not sure how we'd reduce "Is there a problem?" to one word though.
Tabs are IMHO kind of invisible. People I've spoken to have never noticed them before. Everyone's used Wikipedia. Not many realise there is a "History" tab, for instance. I'm thinking a big green friendly bubble.
Would dissrupt reading experence. A red outlined tab perhaps?
We could always add something to the sidebar. If you go to Commons you can see the general idea, there they have a bar called "navigate" and a bar called "participate". The sidebar is customisable in-wiki by editing [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]].
Of course, it would be nice to be able to style it so that it stands out - a slight modification to the way the skin renders the HTML could add an "id" parameter to each div in the sidebar, which could then be styled via [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css]].
On 19/11/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/11/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
We could put a link like this up in the Sitenotice/Anonnotice so it'll easily be available on every article.
How about a tab? I'm not sure how we'd reduce "Is there a problem?" to one word though.
So make it multiple words. "Edit this page" is multiple words. Perhaps we could change "Edit this page" to "Improve this article".
- d.
On 11/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So make it multiple words. "Edit this page" is multiple words. Perhaps we could change "Edit this page" to "Improve this article".
I'm really hoping for something higher visibility, but how's this for easy-to-implement:
Replace this text: "You are not currently logged in. While you are free to edit without logging in, your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history. Creating an account will conceal your IP address and provide you with many other benefits. "
With: How can we improve this article? Is there plagiarism? (link) Is there a factual inaccuracy? (link)... etc ... If you're comfortable editing Wikicode directly, feel free to dive in below. (links to resources, help text, etc...) (some spiel about being anonymous, getting an account...)
Steve
On 19/11/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So make it multiple words. "Edit this page" is multiple words. Perhaps we could change "Edit this page" to "Improve this article".
I'm not sure "Improve this article" is precise enough to convey the function of the tab. Everytime I edit an article, I aim to improve the article. I would prefer a wording closer to "Is there something wrong with this article?"
On 11/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure "Improve this article" is precise enough to convey the function of the tab. Everytime I edit an article, I aim to improve the article. I would prefer a wording closer to "Is there something wrong with this article?"
Me too. Our audience here is not our standard wikipedia contributor, it's your average passer-by who is not expecting to contribute anything. How about "Spot a mistake?" Something engaging, in colloquial English is probably the way to go.
Steve
On 19/11/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
it's your average passer-by who is not expecting to contribute anything. How about "Spot a mistake?" Something engaging, in colloquial English is probably the way to go.
"Something wrong?"
--- Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 19/11/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
anything. How about "Spot a mistake?" Something
engaging, in
colloquial English is probably the way to go.
"Something wrong?"
Simply WRONG! would do. Or OOPS! There are a few other monosyllabic words that word draw attention, but probably wouldn't be acceptable despite all the uncensored claims.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail beta Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
On 11/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
We could put a link like this up in the Sitenotice/Anonnotice so it'll easily be available on every article.
Where would that appear exactly? I actually should have said "It will appear when viewing any article", rather than looking like part of the article itself. Hell, a floating bubble would probably be the most correct - if you find a problem at the bottom of the article, you may not scroll back to the top looking for a way to report it.
Now, to implement this "The simplest way that could possibly work", what should happen? Perhaps it should just generate a bunch of text (substing a template?) and dump it on the bottom of the talk page? It could even include a {{Flagged problem to be resolved}} template or something to get people's attention. Add the talk page to a special category, even...
What sorts of problems and resolutions should we offer? 1) Plagiarism: Describe the offending text and its originating URL if possible. Give contact details? (a problem if leaving an email address on the talk page...) 2) Factually incorrect: Give details 3) Duplicate article: Name the other article(s), with comments 4) Incorrect name: Suggest a new name 5) Missing info: Provide URLs or deadtree references for further information? That could be really handy if academics are wandering past...
Now, I'm presuming the basic workflow is going to go like this: 1) User clicks a general purpose "I want to help with this article" button 2) User is taken to new page (or expanding window?) with options 3) User selects an option, taken to another new page? 4) User is shown informaiton on the option they've chosen, enters more information about the problem... 5) The problem is now reported on the talk page - obviously some state needs to be maintained here.
Anyone know how to implement this?
Steve
On 11/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
We could put a link like this up in the Sitenotice/Anonnotice so it'll easily be available on every article.
<snip> if you find a problem at the bottom of the article, you may
not scroll back to the top looking for a way to report it.
<snip>
That's true, but it's still a good idea. How about having different things in different places? A tab up on top would be useful for obvious problems with the article that people see before they read it. A big box on the bottom saying "[[Wikipedia:Notifying us of problems|Was there anything wrong with this article?]]" or whatever would allow people to report problems after they read the page, but it wouldn't disrupt reading experience because it's over. We could also change section editing's "[edit]" to something more specific, or add another link right next to it to link to the same page that the bottom box links to.
On 11/20/06, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
That's true, but it's still a good idea. How about having different things in different places? A tab up on top would be useful for obvious problems with the article that people see before they read it. A big box on the bottom saying "[[Wikipedia:Notifying us of problems|Was there anything wrong with this article?]]" or whatever would allow people to report problems after they read the page, but it wouldn't disrupt reading experience because it's over. We could also change section editing's "[edit]" to something more specific, or add another link right next to it to link to the same page that the bottom box links to.
Yep. How do we get started? We're basically agreed that we want: 1) Some visible front end for anons - possibly in the "anonnotice" (whatever that is), possibly in the stylesheet to make it appear at the section level, or at the end of the article. Anyone know how to make this happen?
2) A place that this links to, which preserves state (ie, where it came from), offering a range of common problems, and where to go for help for problems that aren't addressed there.
3) A way of collecting more information depending on the type of problem
4) A way of transforming then storing that information on the article's talk page. Ideally it will also be stored on a centralised page, but if not, categories will be used to centralise these requests.
I don't know how to implement any of these, except perhaps 2 (not sure about the statefulness). Worse, I don't know what's involved in implementing them, like whether MediaWiki itself needs to be modified. Can JavaScript do all this? If so, presumably monobook.js or something can be modified? Anyone know?
Steve
Let's make sure we are not implementing a drive-by tagging tool and anticipate what would happen to articles like [[Abortion]] or [[War on Terror]]. I would lean towards encouraging readers to join and become responsible editors. Thanks HS
On 11/22/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/06, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
That's true, but it's still a good idea. How about having different things in different places? A tab up on top would be useful for obvious problems with the article that people see before they read it. A big box on the bottom saying "[[Wikipedia:Notifying us of problems|Was there anything wrong with this article?]]" or whatever would allow people to report problems after they read the page, but it wouldn't disrupt reading experience because it's over. We could also change section editing's "[edit]" to something more specific, or add another link right next to it to link to the same page that the bottom box links to.
Yep. How do we get started? We're basically agreed that we want:
- Some visible front end for anons - possibly in the "anonnotice"
(whatever that is), possibly in the stylesheet to make it appear at the section level, or at the end of the article. Anyone know how to make this happen?
- A place that this links to, which preserves state (ie, where it
came from), offering a range of common problems, and where to go for help for problems that aren't addressed there.
A way of collecting more information depending on the type of problem
A way of transforming then storing that information on the
article's talk page. Ideally it will also be stored on a centralised page, but if not, categories will be used to centralise these requests.
I don't know how to implement any of these, except perhaps 2 (not sure about the statefulness). Worse, I don't know what's involved in implementing them, like whether MediaWiki itself needs to be modified. Can JavaScript do all this? If so, presumably monobook.js or something can be modified? Anyone know?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/29/06, Humus Sapiens humus.sapiens@gmail.com wrote:
Let's make sure we are not implementing a drive-by tagging tool and anticipate what would happen to articles like [[Abortion]] or [[War on Terror]]. I would lean towards encouraging readers to join and become responsible editors.
What would happen to these articles? I guess in the system I've tentatively been proposing, you would have a long stream of tags along the lines of "Factually incorrect: NO BUSH LIED ITS ALL ABOUT OIL!!1" or something. Perhaps there should be a way to indicate that certain pages not be eligible for driveby assistance - "thanks, but we have more than enough helpers on this page. Care to look at some [[...|others]]?"
Good point.
Incidentally, anyone yet know how to implement this?
Steve
We could, right now, put a link on the anonnotice to "Report a problem" that links to create a new section on the talk page, but that would be only the most minimal of the suggested improvements, some of which may require developer intervention.
On 11/29/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/29/06, Humus Sapiens humus.sapiens@gmail.com wrote:
Let's make sure we are not implementing a drive-by tagging tool and anticipate what would happen to articles like [[Abortion]] or [[War on Terror]]. I would lean towards encouraging readers to join and become responsible editors.
What would happen to these articles? I guess in the system I've tentatively been proposing, you would have a long stream of tags along the lines of "Factually incorrect: NO BUSH LIED ITS ALL ABOUT OIL!!1" or something. Perhaps there should be a way to indicate that certain pages not be eligible for driveby assistance - "thanks, but we have more than enough helpers on this page. Care to look at some [[...|others]]?"
Good point.
Incidentally, anyone yet know how to implement this?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/2/06, Christopher Hagar cmhagar@gmail.com wrote:
We could, right now, put a link on the anonnotice to "Report a problem" that links to create a new section on the talk page, but that would be only the most minimal of the suggested improvements, some of which may require developer intervention.
I would like to at the very least be able to guide the user through the most common problems. In particular, if they are reporting libel or copyvios, there are better channels to take. Doing that implies at least one intermediate page with a menu (like the one I referred to recently here), but I don't know if we can maintain state through that intermediat page so the "create new section" would still know which talk page to go to.
Steve
--- Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
tonight that she had found two different articles on the same topic, and was annoyed by it. I felt like saying, "why didn't you suggest a merge?" But then realised that the steps involved are totally unrealistic for the average passer by: edit the article, add "{{mergefrom|...}}" to that article, then do the same for
<snip>
More concretely:
- Put a big "Does this article need fixing?" link in a
prominent place on each article (perhaps only for logged-out users or newbies?) 2) Upon clicking it, present a list of common problems: Plagiarism, factual error, duplicate article, incorrect name for article, missing information... 3) Explain that the user can edit it themselves *if they're interested*, or make it *very* easy for them to report the problem so more experienced Wikipedians can fix it. "So fix it" is
<snip>
I agree with Steve's idea to make it easy for readers to tag duplicate articles.
I'm not sure if it would be useful for anything beyond tags that apply to articles as a whole, but it seems like a useful way for identifying common problems like spin-offs (or whatever you call the problem when someone intentionally creates a new article to support their personal agenda).
In terms of easy/automation, it would/should allow for the person to: 1) auto-tag one of the duplicate articles 2) simply type in the name of the other article instead of having to deal with wiki-tags and link formatting like [[blah]]. 3) automatically keep a count of how many users (e.g., 5) think the articles should be combined before official merger nomination thingees are inserted into the articles.
It might also reduce admin annoyances/work where more active readers not familiar with all the wiki bureaucracy simply de-duplicate the articles themselves, blanking 1 duplicate and adjusting the other, only to have an admin auto-revert all the potentially helpful work.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link
$420k for $1,399/mo. Think You Pay Too Much For Your Mortgage? Find Out! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
On 11/20/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not sure if it would be useful for anything beyond tags that apply to articles as a whole, but it seems like a useful way for identifying common problems like spin-offs (or whatever you call the problem when someone intentionally creates a new article to support their personal agenda).
"POV forks", believe it or not.
Tagging is all we want to get out of these drive-by-ers. We have articles that don't average an edit per month, but may get something like 10 page views. If one of those viewers can just alert us to the fact that there's something badly wrong that can be fixed (slander, plagiarism etc), then we're much better off than we are now.
- automatically keep a count of how many users (e.g., 5)
think the articles should be combined before official merger nomination thingees are inserted into the articles.
Since we're really talking about non-Wikipedians alerting us to stuff, it's probably not appropriate for their 5 second interaction to result in a change to the article itself. They won't know the policies, guidelines etc relating to when articles should and shouldn't be merged. But letting us know that there are two really similar (and in their view, confusingly so) articles would be great.
I guess I'm picturing a model where people can easily flag a problem, and that flag is listed both at the article and at some central repository as an issue that should be addressed pretty urgently. Other people can then come past and take action, either by inserting the appropriate merge templates, adding {{copyvio}} or whatever. With some knowledge of what they're doing...and if the original flagger is mistaken, they can simply replace {{flagged problem}} with {{no problem}} or something.
It might also reduce admin annoyances/work where more active readers not familiar with all the wiki bureaucracy simply de-duplicate the articles themselves, blanking 1 duplicate and adjusting the other, only to have an admin auto-revert all the potentially helpful work.
Definitely.
Steve
Aha:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem
This is good. But this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_er...
should be simplified to:
Solution: What is the error? [edit box]
(Submit) <-- button
Steve
On 20/11/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Aha:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem
This is good. But this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_er...
should be simplified to:
Solution: What is the error? [edit box]
(Submit) <-- button
Mmmh. I'm much more in favour of a solution that *isn't* {{sofixit}} - this is not just for people who don't realise they can edit, it's also for the substantial number of people who don't *want* to, but would vaguely like to help in some way*.
What I would like to see is the following:
A sidebar button, of some form. "Found a mistake?" "Problem?" "Report a problem", whatever. You click this, it spawns a new window**, and says
---
Think there's a problem with this article?
a) Click here to flag the article for attention [submit button]
-or- (preferred)
b) Leave us a message describing the problem, which will help us fix it [textbox and submit button]
---
If they don't want to have *any interaction at all* beyond pressing that button, it's fine, and we should take that input without demanding more out of them. (We can always ignore it if it's not helpful)
As to what happens then...
a) We make this an email-form. It gets routed straight to some kind of OTRS-like ticket system, which has fairly liberal access given to it - the point here isn't to make it "private", it's to make it easy to see what's been handled and when a backlog builds up.
b) We send "message describing the problem" straight as some kind of new section to a central page for this sort of thing, and have "flag this article" just subst a standard template ({{lookatthis}} - heh) onto there. Remember, these articles are likely to be dormant ones, so a talkpage message may well be ineffective...
c) The same as b), except it makes some kind of "mask account" do it, rather than just the edit being treated as coming from the reader - who, after all, may be banned unknown to themselves. It also ensures anonymity of flaggin, which may be seen as desirable.
These may require some kind of not-quite-MediaWiki implementation, but that would in some ways be good - we want this to be free of some of the mediawiki constraints, like IP-blocking and so forth.
I'm personally quite taken by a), since it would seem to scale better than a single page, but it has the detriment fewer people would handle it. On the other hand, it would ensure some level of privacy if, eg, people started leaving personal info in their messages.
Thoughts?
On 20/11/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
a) We make this an email-form. It gets routed straight to some kind of OTRS-like ticket system, which has fairly liberal access given to it - the point here isn't to make it "private", it's to make it easy to see what's been handled and when a backlog builds up.
For those who are ignorant of what "OTRS" is (as was I just now) it's at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS . I had no idea such a thing existed.
Hm. Not sure what to make of the idea, but it'd be interesting to see it developed.
I'd favor something along the lines of "Found a mistake?" or "Report a problem." Three options seem to present themselves: a new tab, a link in the sidebar, or a mention in MediaWiki:Anonnotice. The last of the three might be the most visible, I think. The bigger question to me would be whether this would work through a mailing list, or by creating new talk page sections with nifty templates and such. I kind've favor the on-wiki solution, personally.
But, let's see where this goes.
On 11/20/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 20/11/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
a) We make this an email-form. It gets routed straight to some kind of OTRS-like ticket system, which has fairly liberal access given to it - the point here isn't to make it "private", it's to make it easy to see what's been handled and when a backlog builds up.
For those who are ignorant of what "OTRS" is (as was I just now) it's at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS . I had no idea such a thing existed.
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/20/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Mmmh. I'm much more in favour of a solution that *isn't* {{sofixit}} - this is not just for people who don't realise they can edit, it's also for the substantial number of people who don't *want* to, but would vaguely like to help in some way*.
Well put.
a) Click here to flag the article for attention [submit button]
-or- (preferred)
b) Leave us a message describing the problem, which will help us fix it [textbox and submit button]
Nice. This is a good solution to the "I'm willing to spare precisely 5 seconds of my time fixing your article" passerby.
a) We make this an email-form. It gets routed straight to some kind of OTRS-like ticket system, which has fairly liberal access given to it - the point here isn't to make it "private", it's to make it easy to see what's been handled and when a backlog builds up.
Every second time I hear the word OTRS it's "OTRS is totally overloaded, is there some way of taking the pressure off?" My preferred solution (I think I mentioned it earlier) would be to place a message on the talk page, and to link to it from some centralised page. If done carefully, that centralised page could show which items still need to be addressed. Bearing in mind of course that if a talk page message *doesn't* get addressed immediately, it's not the end of the world, it happens frequently as it is.
c) The same as b), except it makes some kind of "mask account" do it, rather than just the edit being treated as coming from the reader - who, after all, may be banned unknown to themselves. It also ensures anonymity of flaggin, which may be seen as desirable.
Is anonymity desirable here? Why?
These may require some kind of not-quite-MediaWiki implementation, but that would in some ways be good - we want this to be free of some of the mediawiki constraints, like IP-blocking and so forth.
What if someone uses this new mechanism to avoid their IP block and be a pain? How would we stop them?
I'm personally quite taken by a), since it would seem to scale better than a single page, but it has the detriment fewer people would handle it. On the other hand, it would ensure some level of privacy if, eg,
If someone is flagging a specific problem with article X, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to send it only to a central repository. Talk:X very much seems the right place, if not the only place.
people started leaving personal info in their messages.
Yeah, that would be a problem. A sufficiently loud warning "Please do *not* leave any contact information here - your message will be made public." should be able to cover that.
Steve
On 21/11/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Mmmh. I'm much more in favour of a solution that *isn't* {{sofixit}} - this is not just for people who don't realise they can edit, it's also for the substantial number of people who don't *want* to, but would vaguely like to help in some way*.
Well put.
We get an awful lot of emails which say "you guys are the best thing since sliced bread, and I love you all dearly, it's wonderful that anyone can edit... er, please fix the following typo for me since I'm feart."
It's hard to kick that kind of person with {{sofixit}} ;-)
a) We make this an email-form. It gets routed straight to some kind of OTRS-like ticket system, which has fairly liberal access given to it - the point here isn't to make it "private", it's to make it easy to see what's been handled and when a backlog builds up.
Every second time I hear the word OTRS it's "OTRS is totally overloaded, is there some way of taking the pressure off?" My preferred solution (I think I mentioned it earlier) would be to place a message on the talk page, and to link to it from some centralised page. If done carefully, that centralised page could show which items still need to be addressed. Bearing in mind of course that if a talk page message *doesn't* get addressed immediately, it's not the end of the world, it happens frequently as it is.
When I say OTRS-like it's deliberate - this isn't going to be bolted on to the existing system for handling @wikimedia.org emails, but rather a seperate handling system which uses the same (or similar) software and concepts. Basically, just something that lets us see what's open, what's closed, what's being handled.
A monitored category, with talk-page tags, would probably work as well for this, if a few people take it under their wing. Even if all we do is tag it for cleanup etc, at least it means there are "this article is Really Crappy" warnings on it for any future readers.
In the long run, I honestly see this taking pressure off main-OTRS - it means that the people who will jump through the extra hoop or three to contact us directly are likely to be those with a problem more significant that "OMG someone vandalised this page".
c) The same as b), except it makes some kind of "mask account" do it, rather than just the edit being treated as coming from the reader - who, after all, may be banned unknown to themselves. It also ensures anonymity of flaggin, which may be seen as desirable.
Is anonymity desirable here? Why?
I feel it would be nice, in many ways; logging IP addresses is defensible for contributions, but for something as trivial as a critical comment... IMO it's overkill. YMMV.
An additional benefit of the "single flagging account" is that we can trivially go back and see how the system is being used, just by looking at the contributions of that single "user".
These may require some kind of not-quite-MediaWiki implementation, but that would in some ways be good - we want this to be free of some of the mediawiki constraints, like IP-blocking and so forth.
What if someone uses this new mechanism to avoid their IP block and be a pain? How would we stop them?
*shrug* All they're able to do is leave ranty screeds on talkpages. We can just dump those if it gets abused.
I do honestly feel that preventing blocks from governing this gives us a net benefit - sure, we'll get some abuse, but we'll also get the opportunity for a lot of users who would otherwise be unable to participate to leave comments. (Think of AOL users, or those behind school rangeblocks, etc etc)
I'm personally quite taken by a), since it would seem to scale better than a single page, but it has the detriment fewer people would handle it. On the other hand, it would ensure some level of privacy if, eg,
If someone is flagging a specific problem with article X, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to send it only to a central repository. Talk:X very much seems the right place, if not the only place.
Ask yourself this: would it have worked for Siegenthaler, or for some random hoax article in a walled garden? Talk-and-categorising would work, I suppose - same effective result as central flagging.
people started leaving personal info in their messages.
Yeah, that would be a problem. A sufficiently loud warning "Please do *not* leave any contact information here - your message will be made public." should be able to cover that.
How about "this article is about me, and..." cases?
On 11/22/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
When I say OTRS-like it's deliberate - this isn't going to be bolted on to the existing system for handling @wikimedia.org emails, but rather a seperate handling system which uses the same (or similar) software and concepts. Basically, just something that lets us see what's open, what's closed, what's being handled.
What's the need, exactly? Wikipedia is littered with "work to be done" requests. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Opentask, fo example. None of those tasks are really tracked, monitored, prioritised - people just do them when they get to them. Is that not the appropriate strategy for this as well?
In the long run, I honestly see this taking pressure off main-OTRS - it means that the people who will jump through the extra hoop or three to contact us directly are likely to be those with a problem more significant that "OMG someone vandalised this page".
Cool :)
I feel it would be nice, in many ways; logging IP addresses is defensible for contributions, but for something as trivial as a critical comment... IMO it's overkill. YMMV.
I agree, but attempting to hide IPs would be difficult (ie, require changes to the software) and problematic (possibly allowing vandals to get around blocks etc). Desirable, but not strictly necessary?
An additional benefit of the "single flagging account" is that we can trivially go back and see how the system is being used, just by looking at the contributions of that single "user".
Logging everything on one central page would also have that advantage.
I do honestly feel that preventing blocks from governing this gives us a net benefit - sure, we'll get some abuse, but we'll also get the opportunity for a lot of users who would otherwise be unable to participate to leave comments. (Think of AOL users, or those behind school rangeblocks, etc etc)
Maybe - you could be right. Anyway, this is a bit of a side issue. We can certainly implement this a bit further down the track, can't we?
Ask yourself this: would it have worked for Siegenthaler, or for some random hoax article in a walled garden? Talk-and-categorising would work, I suppose - same effective result as central flagging.
Yep.
Yeah, that would be a problem. A sufficiently loud warning "Please do *not* leave any contact information here - your message will be made public." should be able to cover that.
How about "this article is about me, and..." cases?
Contact OTRS for that one. We can delimit specific cases that should and should not be dealt with via this method (which needs a name). The talk page is not the right place to go for "I am lawyer X. My client is being slandered. You have until sunrise tomorrow or knees get broken." type messages. It *is* the right place for "Napoleon wasn't born in 1943 you twerps." type messages.
Steve
On 22/11/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/22/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
When I say OTRS-like it's deliberate - this isn't going to be bolted on to the existing system for handling @wikimedia.org emails, but rather a seperate handling system which uses the same (or similar) software and concepts. Basically, just something that lets us see what's open, what's closed, what's being handled.
What's the need, exactly? Wikipedia is littered with "work to be done" requests. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Opentask, fo example. None of those tasks are really tracked, monitored, prioritised - people just do them when they get to them. Is that not the appropriate strategy for this as well?
Hmm. I expect three resolutions: "vandalism removed", "page actually labelled as crap", or "real problem being dealt with"; "resolving" one of these should be trivially easy except in case 3. We're not actually guaranteeing to *do* the remedial work, etc - just to ensure that the page is flagged that it needs it. In many ways we're feeding {{opentask}} rather than running alongside it...
We don't really need a tracking or prioritising system, but some way of seeing if there is a backlog and how bad that backlog is would be a very useful way of deciding if this system works or not.
An additional benefit of the "single flagging account" is that we can trivially go back and see how the system is being used, just by looking at the contributions of that single "user".
Logging everything on one central page would also have that advantage.
True. Again, this is as much for judging uptake as it is for ease of operation.
I do honestly feel that preventing blocks from governing this gives us a net benefit - sure, we'll get some abuse, but we'll also get the opportunity for a lot of users who would otherwise be unable to participate to leave comments. (Think of AOL users, or those behind school rangeblocks, etc etc)
Maybe - you could be right. Anyway, this is a bit of a side issue. We can certainly implement this a bit further down the track, can't we?
Yeah, most likely. I just *really* don't want to implement something like this and then discover that it's giving massively unhelpful and disconcerting you-have-been-blocked, etc, messages to users. This would - to my mind - negate the entire "outreach" aspect of it.
On 22/11/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
We don't really need a tracking or prioritising system, but some way of seeing if there is a backlog and how bad that backlog is would be a very useful way of deciding if this system works or not.
This would also one of those administrative backlogs that wouldn't require admin rights to fix.
- d.