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?
Hey Joe,
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?
The article discusses two changes, one in past and one in present tense. The old change, mentioned as a reaction to the Siegenthaler[0] bizzo, was "recent changes make it harder for ordinary users to create and update pages on the site." This obviously refers to banning new-page creation from anons[1] and semi-protection[2].
The more recent change, preventing anon users (I assume) from creating pages or making edits until they're approved by someone else, is something the author asserts the German Wikipedia are experimenting with. However, given that it's been discussed repeatedly here, it's not unreasonable to assume, as the author does, that if the German trial goes well, we might adopt it, too.
[0] If I get it wrong this time, it's the BBC's fault.
[1] Much as I like the lower workload this has caused, it might be nice to new page creation back on and see what happens. We can even call it an "experiment", if only to see how Bryan Derkson reacts ...
[2] Indeed, he mentions semi-protection explicitly later on.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
The more recent change, preventing anon users (I assume) from creating pages or making edits until they're approved by someone else, is something the author asserts the German Wikipedia are experimenting with. However, given that it's been discussed repeatedly here, it's not unreasonable to assume, as the author does, that if the German trial goes well, we might adopt it, too.
If it's an experiment, I'd like to see what the analysis of the results show before implementing it here.
[0] If I get it wrong this time, it's the BBC's fault.
[1] Much as I like the lower workload this has caused, it might be nice to new page creation back on and see what happens. We can even call it an "experiment", if only to see how Bryan Derkson reacts ...
You probably can guess. :)
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.
Bryan Derksen 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 second the request if there has been a serious analysis. Anecdotally, I can say that I think that the experiment with disabling page creation for anons has not been particularly useful and that we should turn page creation back on for anons at some point fairly soon.
--Jimbo
On 8/28/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen 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 second the request if there has been a serious analysis. Anecdotally, I can say that I think that the experiment with disabling page creation for anons has not been particularly useful and that we should turn page creation back on for anons at some point fairly soon.
--Jimbo
Should be noting that are avtive admin to article ratio is geting worse which means things may not go back to the way they were before.
geni wrote:
On 8/28/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen 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 second the request if there has been a serious analysis. Anecdotally, I can say that I think that the experiment with disabling page creation for anons has not been particularly useful and that we should turn page creation back on for anons at some point fairly soon.
Should be noting that are avtive admin to article ratio is geting worse which means things may not go back to the way they were before.
All the more reason to begin to put flags on articles so that when they exist the general public only gets those stable versions that have been checked for overt vandalism.
The admin to edit ratio is probably more important than the admin to article ratio. We can expect that the total number of articles will keep going up, but many of those articles are very stable. The only time that the average vandal would even think of looking at them is when they came up through the random page function. A vandal who has an obsession about doing nasty things to articles related to citrus fruit will soon make himself obvious.
Ec
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Bryan Derksen 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 second the request if there has been a serious analysis. Anecdotally, I can say that I think that the experiment with disabling page creation for anons has not been particularly useful and that we should turn page creation back on for anons at some point fairly soon.
My gnawing, niggling concerns about this situation were just about completely allayed there, thanks. :)
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I second the request if there has been a serious analysis. Anecdotally, I can say that I think that the experiment with disabling page creation for anons has not been particularly useful and that we should turn page creation back on for anons at some point fairly soon.
My gnawing, niggling concerns about this situation were just about completely allayed there, thanks. :)
Oh, and I should mention that this was meant in all seriousness. It only occurred moments after I posted that some people use smilies solely to indicate irony or wryness, whereas I often use them simply to indicate good cheer.
On 8/27/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
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?
You basically missed the fact that Bill Thompson is fond of talking out of his ass.
Mark's description of what German is going to be testing is not accurate. Anonymous users will still be permitted to make all the edits they want. The system that German is going to be testing will simply limit the impact that anonymous EDITORS have on anonymous READERS by changing which version of an article is displayed by default.
Kelly
On 27 Aug 2006, at 13:29, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 8/27/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
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?
You basically missed the fact that Bill Thompson is fond of talking out of his ass.
Mark's description of what German is going to be testing is not accurate. Anonymous users will still be permitted to make all the edits they want. The system that German is going to be testing will simply limit the impact that anonymous EDITORS have on anonymous READERS by changing which version of an article is displayed by default.
So what exactly is being proposed?
On 8/27/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
So what exactly is being proposed?
Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism. There may be more recent revisions, but those will not be displayed by default; readers will have to specifically request to see them. A consequence of this is that edits made by anonymous readers will not be immediately displayed as the "primary" revision of an article. This is being misrepresented by some as imposing an approval requirement on such edits before they become visible, but that's not what it is; such edits are immediately visible as they are now, just not as the primary version which is displayed by default to anonymous readers.
I, personally, see this as a great benefit to the vast bulk of our customers: the chances that Joe Q. Public will go to an article he found by a Google search and be confronted by unexpected penis go WAY down with this approach.
Kelly
On 8/27/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism.
[snip]
Of course, 'Trusted user' is a complicated issue in and of itself.
I can't stress enough that only Dewiki is currently discussing this, not Enwiki... Their experiences will be more valuable to us than *months* of speculation on the list, so until we have the data the speculation is likely pointless.
Once Dewiki has used this long enough to learn some things we should begin discussing it for enwiki. It is possible, and likely, that the details of any future implementation on enwiki will be different from dewiki based on their experiences and our differing community dynamics.
There will be an opportunity for all of us to provide input before any such changes on enwiki.
So please lets not begin a huge argument about something thats not yet well enough defined to argue about... I don't want to see us get burnt out on the subject before we have enough data to make *good* decisions.
At 13:45 -0400 27/8/06, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/27/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism.
[snip]
Of course, 'Trusted user' is a complicated issue in and of itself.
Web of trust is the basis of PGP, surely?
http://www.rubin.ch/pgp/weboftrust.en.html
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/F.AbdulRahman/docs/pgptrust.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust
Good enough then?
Gordo
Gordon Joly wrote:
At 13:45 -0400 27/8/06, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/27/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism.
[snip]
Of course, 'Trusted user' is a complicated issue in and of itself.
Web of trust is the basis of PGP, surely?
http://www.rubin.ch/pgp/weboftrust.en.html
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/F.AbdulRahman/docs/pgptrust.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust
Good enough then?
Someone will shoot me for suggesting it, but there's an "attack-resistant" trust metric available (primarily used by Advogato). We have an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_resistant_trust_metric.
At 10:01 +0930 28/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig9154D8908F4E4A5B0799924A"
Gordon Joly wrote:
At 13:45 -0400 27/8/06, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/27/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism.
[snip]
Of course, 'Trusted user' is a complicated issue in and of itself.
Web of trust is the basis of PGP, surely?
http://www.rubin.ch/pgp/weboftrust.en.html
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/F.AbdulRahman/docs/pgptrust.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust
Good enough then?
Someone will shoot me for suggesting it, but there's an "attack-resistant" trust metric available (primarily used by Advogato). We have an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_resistant_trust_metric.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
"Advogato performs certification to three different levels: Apprentice, Journeyer, and Master."
So, this system is classfull rather than classless.
Gordo
On 28 Aug 2006, at 10:58, Gordon Joly wrote:
At 10:01 +0930 28/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig9154D8908F4E4A5B0799924A"
Gordon Joly wrote:
At 13:45 -0400 27/8/06, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/27/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism.
[snip]
Of course, 'Trusted user' is a complicated issue in and of itself.
Web of trust is the basis of PGP, surely?
http://www.rubin.ch/pgp/weboftrust.en.html
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/F.AbdulRahman/docs/pgptrust.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust
Good enough then?
Someone will shoot me for suggesting it, but there's an "attack-resistant" trust metric available (primarily used by Advogato). We have an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_resistant_trust_metric.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
"Advogato performs certification to three different levels: Apprentice, Journeyer, and Master."
So, this system is classfull rather than classless.
The current system is already classful: some people don't have computers, some people are blocked etc.
It's also gaining considerable sclerosis. My discussions (and experiments) on ways to encourage the creation and viewing of free video content have come against considerable inertia (with the enthusiastic side only slightly ahead).
At 11:45 +0100 28/8/06, Stephen Streater wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006, at 10:58, Gordon Joly wrote:
[...]
"Advogato performs certification to three different levels: Apprentice, Journeyer, and Master."
So, this system is classfull rather than classless.
The current system is already classful: some people don't have computers, some people are blocked etc.
Some people don't have computers? I agree, and I am glad you are concerned about social exclusion......
We should not assume too much. I recall homeless people in the Doonesbury cartoon strip had good access to computers.
It's also gaining considerable sclerosis.
Hmmm.... "sclerosis" is not O word I have heard in this context before, so please explain.
My discussions (and experiments) on ways to encourage the creation and viewing of free video content have come against considerable inertia (with the enthusiastic side only slightly ahead).
Care to expand on that? Who blocked you?
Gordo
On 27 Aug 2006, at 18:15, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 8/27/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
So what exactly is being proposed?
Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism. There may be more recent revisions, but those will not be displayed by default; readers will have to specifically request to see them. A consequence of this is that edits made by anonymous readers will not be immediately displayed as the "primary" revision of an article. This is being misrepresented by some as imposing an approval requirement on such edits before they become visible, but that's not what it is; such edits are immediately visible as they are now, just not as the primary version which is displayed by default to anonymous readers.
I, personally, see this as a great benefit to the vast bulk of our customers: the chances that Joe Q. Public will go to an article he found by a Google search and be confronted by unexpected penis go WAY down with this approach.
I'd also be happy with this.
New users will have a slightly sanitised version while registered users (who are more experienced) will be happy to revert any vandalism.
At 12:15 -0500 27/8/06, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 8/27/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
So what exactly is being proposed?
Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism. There may be more recent revisions, but those will not be displayed by default; readers will have to specifically request to see them. A consequence of this is that edits made by anonymous readers will not be immediately displayed as the "primary" revision of an article. This is being misrepresented by some as imposing an approval requirement on such edits before they become visible, but that's not what it is; such edits are immediately visible as they are now, just not as the primary version which is displayed by default to anonymous readers.
I, personally, see this as a great benefit to the vast bulk of our customers: the chances that Joe Q. Public will go to an article he found by a Google search and be confronted by unexpected penis go WAY down with this approach.
Kelly
http://news.com.com/Can+German+engineering+fix+Wikipedia/2100-1038_3-6108495...
A related source.... not the BBC.
"We want to let anybody edit," Wales said, "but we don't want to show vandalized versions."
Gordo
Who are these 'trusted users'?
On 8/27/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
So what exactly is being proposed?
Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism. There may be more recent revisions, but those will not be displayed by default; readers will have to specifically request to see them. A consequence of this is that edits made by anonymous readers will not be immediately displayed as the "primary" revision of an article. This is being misrepresented by some as imposing an approval requirement on such edits before they become visible, but that's not what it is; such edits are immediately visible as they are now, just not as the primary version which is displayed by default to anonymous readers.
I, personally, see this as a great benefit to the vast bulk of our customers: the chances that Joe Q. Public will go to an article he found by a Google search and be confronted by unexpected penis go WAY down with this approach.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Kelly,
On 8/27/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
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?
You basically missed the fact that Bill Thompson is fond of talking out of his ass.
Mark's description of what German is going to be testing is not accurate.
<snip />
Be fair, Kel, my *source* was a fellow apparently known for being "fond of talking out of his ass"!
Thanks for the correction :-)
Joe Anderson wrote:
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?
The journalist is typical of bad journalists. Running with only the slimmest of understanding, he pukes out his biases about how the world works with little concern for underlying facts.
Fortunately for us all, there are also good journalists.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
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?
The journalist is typical of bad journalists. Running with only the slimmest of understanding, he pukes out his biases about how the world works with little concern for underlying facts.
Fortunately for us all, there are also good journalists.
--Jimbo
I quit reading Bill Thompson's articles on the BBC a year or two ago when he suggested that IRC and all Internet chat should (by law) have to be authenticated with verified identities for everyone.
SKL
At 13:50 +0800 28/8/06, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
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?
The journalist is typical of bad journalists. Running with only the slimmest of understanding, he pukes out his biases about how the world works with little concern for underlying facts.
Fortunately for us all, there are also good journalists.
--Jimbo
Jimbo,
That is an "ad hominem" attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Have you read the article? Which parts are you unhappy with?
Gordo