This is in response to the somewhat silly English-language press we've had lately. I'll be sending copies of this out to the sources of recent articles on the subject that got it precisely backwards.
The following is, I understand, technically accurate, based on text from Amgine, Phillipp Birkin (de:wp), Jimbo and Mathias Schindler (I think), and comcom discussions (press relations being part of that job). Corrections welcomed - you have about five minutes.
(and geni, I expect you to ask how this makes the new patrollers' jobs easier - by having what's effectively a feed of new-editor and anonymous edits, is what I was thinking of.)
- d.
"Approved" versions on Wikipedia FAQ
* What is changing?
We want to open up editing without damaging the reader's experience.
We want to be more wiki and let editors edit freely, which is where all the good things come from. At present a small percentage of articles (a few hundred out of 1.5 million on the English language Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/) are locked or partially locked from editing. We want to open these up. But Wikipedia is a top 20 website (Alexa ratings, no. 17 on 3 month average; no. 15 on 30 August 2006 - http://www.alexa.com/), so we must keep it good for the readers.
The new feature will mean that edits from new or anonymous editors will be delayed before being shown to readers - they will see a 'flagged OK' version by default, with a link to the live version. The idea is to enhance the *reading* experience, and free us to enhance the *editing* experience. If vandalism can't be seen by the general public, there will be less motivation to vandalise.
Anonymous or new-editor edits will need to be approved by a logged-in editor. Of the thousands of editors on the large Wikipedias, many concentrate on checking revisions and dealing with odd changes and vandalism - this will assist their work and we do not expect new delays.
We are also considering a related feature to flag particular versions of articles as being of high quality. This is to a different end: a high-quality finished product. This will likely be tested first on the German language Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/), which has already had three stable editions released on CD and DVD, which have sold quite well. If the feature works there, it may be used on other language Wikipedias.
These features are not finished, so we don't have a lot of fine detail as to how it will all work as yet. But we hope this change will allow us to do things such as open up the George W. Bush article or even the front page itself to full unrestricted editing.
* When was this proposed?
Jimmy Wales asked for a time-delay feature for casual readers in late 2004; after very fast editing on the Indian Ocean tsunami produced a very high-quality article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake) very quickly, but with some highly visible vandalism; we've hotly discussed how to achieve stable high-quality editions of Wikipedia since almost the start of the project, in 2001.
Does this make the 5 minute cut? :)
I think the premise of the FAQ is off in its current form. I am worried by the "we" part, meaning the mythical monolithic Wikipedia community. (ie. Why not make this an opportunity to show that Wikipedias have their distinct culture and are at different stages of development?)
I think the announcement should make clear: - There has always been a desire for a better reader experience - The larger Wikipedia communities have turned their attention from growth to quality - The German Wikipedia has initiated an experiment with a "nonvandalized" and "checked" versions (nb: terminology may need to be tweaked) - This "potentially" may allow for a mechanism other than blunt protection for preventing vandalism - The greater Wikipedia community hopes to learn from this pilot project - The English and other Wikipedias, with their own norms and cultures, may or may not adopt the German initiatives
PS: Would be nice to have a pointer to a meta page (if it exists) describing the German initiative. If I had not attended the Wikimania 2006 summit on the top floor of Pound Hall with Danny, Kurt, G. Maxwell, Jimmy, Raul654, Kelly Martin, et al, I would not have known these things. And I'm a bit concerned we're neglecting to use the wiki to share this knowledge.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 8/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is in response to the somewhat silly English-language press we've had lately. I'll be sending copies of this out to the sources of recent articles on the subject that got it precisely backwards.
The following is, I understand, technically accurate, based on text from Amgine, Phillipp Birkin (de:wp), Jimbo and Mathias Schindler (I think), and comcom discussions (press relations being part of that job). Corrections welcomed - you have about five minutes.
(and geni, I expect you to ask how this makes the new patrollers' jobs easier - by having what's effectively a feed of new-editor and anonymous edits, is what I was thinking of.)
- d.
"Approved" versions on Wikipedia FAQ
- What is changing?
We want to open up editing without damaging the reader's experience.
We want to be more wiki and let editors edit freely, which is where all the good things come from. At present a small percentage of articles (a few hundred out of 1.5 million on the English language Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/) are locked or partially locked from editing. We want to open these up. But Wikipedia is a top 20 website (Alexa ratings, no. 17 on 3 month average; no. 15 on 30 August 2006 - http://www.alexa.com/), so we must keep it good for the readers.
The new feature will mean that edits from new or anonymous editors will be delayed before being shown to readers - they will see a 'flagged OK' version by default, with a link to the live version. The idea is to enhance the *reading* experience, and free us to enhance the *editing* experience. If vandalism can't be seen by the general public, there will be less motivation to vandalise.
Anonymous or new-editor edits will need to be approved by a logged-in editor. Of the thousands of editors on the large Wikipedias, many concentrate on checking revisions and dealing with odd changes and vandalism - this will assist their work and we do not expect new delays.
We are also considering a related feature to flag particular versions of articles as being of high quality. This is to a different end: a high-quality finished product. This will likely be tested first on the German language Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/), which has already had three stable editions released on CD and DVD, which have sold quite well. If the feature works there, it may be used on other language Wikipedias.
These features are not finished, so we don't have a lot of fine detail as to how it will all work as yet. But we hope this change will allow us to do things such as open up the George W. Bush article or even the front page itself to full unrestricted editing.
- When was this proposed?
Jimmy Wales asked for a time-delay feature for casual readers in late 2004; after very fast editing on the Indian Ocean tsunami produced a very high-quality article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake) very quickly, but with some highly visible vandalism; we've hotly discussed how to achieve stable high-quality editions of Wikipedia since almost the start of the project, in 2001. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 30/08/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Does this make the 5 minute cut? :)
I sent it to a couple of places just now, including Bill Thompson (BBC) who sent a very nice reply. So not quite ;-)
I've put it on Meta. Please hack away at will, and move somewhere better if sensible:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2006_proposed_approval_for_anonymous_edits
(that's a terrible article name. You can tell I've been writing on the work wiki too much. Even if it is MoinMoin.)
I think the premise of the FAQ is off in its current form. I am worried by the "we" part, meaning the mythical monolithic Wikipedia community. (ie. Why not make this an opportunity to show that Wikipedias have their distinct culture and are at different stages of development?)
In this case because it was an immediate response to the Bill Thompson and Platinax articles. I was trying very hard to keep it *really simple* and clear because journalists don't have time to read press releases closely - they have to be able to get your message by skimming.
There's huge piles of detail I left out ...
I think the announcement should make clear:
- There has always been a desire for a better reader experience
- The larger Wikipedia communities have turned their attention from
growth to quality
yep, these are important.
- The German Wikipedia has initiated an experiment with a
"nonvandalized" and "checked" versions (nb: terminology may need to be tweaked)
Yeah. I didn't give them names, but I hope I got this idea across.
- This "potentially" may allow for a mechanism other than blunt
protection for preventing vandalism
Jimbo wanted to emphasise "this is to make things wide-open" because the press coverage had been "OH NOEZ WIKI IS CLOSED", so this probably isn't as neutral as it might ideally be.
- The greater Wikipedia community hopes to learn from this pilot project
I think I've got that in. Platinax emailed me to clarify and I said that it's quite possible it might go badly and we cancel the idea - but we're giving it a go.
- The English and other Wikipedias, with their own norms and cultures,
may or may not adopt the German initiatives
I left out that bit, but I think I have in that we are trying.
PS: Would be nice to have a pointer to a meta page (if it exists) describing the German initiative. If I had not attended the Wikimania 2006 summit on the top floor of Pound Hall with Danny, Kurt, G. Maxwell, Jimmy, Raul654, Kelly Martin, et al, I would not have known these things. And I'm a bit concerned we're neglecting to use the wiki to share this knowledge.
It wasn't a matter of fuss until the press grabbed it and ran with it, conclusively describing the Wikipedia elephant to the public as a rope holding together walls in a fan shape at the top of several trees with a spear and thirty snakes sticking out the side [*]. The feature is probably still way too premature to warrant this attention ... but it's got it anyway.
- d.
[*] http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1/?letter=B&spage=3
David, thanks for the thoughtful evaluation and creating the meta page. Glad to see comcom addressing these things with rapid speed in helping to flesh out the specifics of these initiatives.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 8/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Does this make the 5 minute cut? :)
I sent it to a couple of places just now, including Bill Thompson (BBC) who sent a very nice reply. So not quite ;-)
I've put it on Meta. Please hack away at will, and move somewhere better if sensible:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2006_proposed_approval_for_anonymous_edits(that's a terrible article name. You can tell I've been writing on the work wiki too much. Even if it is MoinMoin.)
I think the premise of the FAQ is off in its current form. I am worried by the "we" part, meaning the mythical monolithic Wikipedia community. (ie. Why not make this an opportunity to show that Wikipedias have their distinct culture and are at different stages of development?)
In this case because it was an immediate response to the Bill Thompson and Platinax articles. I was trying very hard to keep it *really simple* and clear because journalists don't have time to read press releases closely - they have to be able to get your message by skimming.
There's huge piles of detail I left out ...
I think the announcement should make clear:
- There has always been a desire for a better reader experience
- The larger Wikipedia communities have turned their attention from
growth to quality
yep, these are important.
- The German Wikipedia has initiated an experiment with a
"nonvandalized" and "checked" versions (nb: terminology may need to be tweaked)
Yeah. I didn't give them names, but I hope I got this idea across.
- This "potentially" may allow for a mechanism other than blunt
protection for preventing vandalism
Jimbo wanted to emphasise "this is to make things wide-open" because the press coverage had been "OH NOEZ WIKI IS CLOSED", so this probably isn't as neutral as it might ideally be.
- The greater Wikipedia community hopes to learn from this pilot project
I think I've got that in. Platinax emailed me to clarify and I said that it's quite possible it might go badly and we cancel the idea - but we're giving it a go.
- The English and other Wikipedias, with their own norms and cultures,
may or may not adopt the German initiatives
I left out that bit, but I think I have in that we are trying.
PS: Would be nice to have a pointer to a meta page (if it exists) describing the German initiative. If I had not attended the Wikimania 2006 summit on the top floor of Pound Hall with Danny, Kurt, G. Maxwell, Jimmy, Raul654, Kelly Martin, et al, I would not have known these things. And I'm a bit concerned we're neglecting to use the wiki to share this knowledge.
It wasn't a matter of fuss until the press grabbed it and ran with it, conclusively describing the Wikipedia elephant to the public as a rope holding together walls in a fan shape at the top of several trees with a spear and thirty snakes sticking out the side [*]. The feature is probably still way too premature to warrant this attention ... but it's got it anyway.
- d.
[*] http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1/?letter=B&spage=3 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 8/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We want to be more wiki and let editors edit freely, which is where all the good things come from.
That's no less of a insincere statment than it was the first time Jimbo decided to restrict editing and call it becoming more open.
Anonymous or new-editor edits will need to be approved by a logged-in editor.
Non-logged in editors are not anonymous. In fact, the only way to effectively be anonymous is to create an account for every edit and log in.
Anthony
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
That's no less of a insincere statment than it was the first time Jimbo decided to restrict editing and call it becoming more open.
Jimbo did? Really. Jimbo really gets around.
Non-logged in editors are not anonymous. In fact, the only way to effectively be anonymous is to create an account for every edit and log in.
Technically, the word anonymous means without a name.
On 8/30/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
That's no less of a insincere statment than it was the first time Jimbo decided to restrict editing and call it becoming more open.
Jimbo did? Really. Jimbo really gets around.
Did what? You deny he's restricted editing in the past, or that he called it becoming more open?
Non-logged in editors are not anonymous. In fact, the only way to effectively be anonymous is to create an account for every edit and log in.
Technically, the word anonymous means without a name.
So a user who logs in as "88 dot 33 dot 23 dot 23" is anonymous?
On 30/08/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/30/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Non-logged in editors are not anonymous. In fact, the only way to effectively be anonymous is to create an account for every edit and log in.
Technically, the word anonymous means without a name.
So a user who logs in as "88 dot 33 dot 23 dot 23" is anonymous?
Then it's Wikipedia jargon. (And probably shouldn't go in the press version.)
- d.
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Did what? You deny he's restricted editing in the past, or that he called it becoming more open?
Where did Jimbo "decide to restrict editing" and then "called it becoming more open".
Technically, the word anonymous means without a name.
So a user who logs in as "88 dot 33 dot 23 dot 23" is anonymous?
No, they just have a stupid name.
I'm not suggesting that the use of the word anonymous is wise... It's not, especially when talking to outsiders. I'm just pointing out that it isn't incorrect, as you stated.
On 30/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Did what? You deny he's restricted editing in the past, or that he called it becoming more open?
Where did Jimbo "decide to restrict editing" and then "called it becoming more open".
Please don't feed the troll.
- d.
On 8/30/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Did what? You deny he's restricted editing in the past, or that he called it becoming more open?
Where did Jimbo "decide to restrict editing" and then "called it becoming more open".
I have no idea where he did it, but one instance would be when creation of new articles was restricted.
Technically, the word anonymous means without a name.
So a user who logs in as "88 dot 33 dot 23 dot 23" is anonymous?
No, they just have a stupid name.
I'm not suggesting that the use of the word anonymous is wise... It's not, especially when talking to outsiders. I'm just pointing out that it isn't incorrect, as you stated.
Unwise and confusing, or inaccurate, whatever. It should be phrased better.
On 8/30/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I have no idea where he did it
Then buzz off, troll.
You intentionally misquoted me, but I'm the troll?
On 30/08/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/30/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I have no idea where he did it
Then buzz off, troll.
You intentionally misquoted me, but I'm the troll?
In this case, whether your querulousness is intentional (as "trolling" is something done deliberately) or just a personality flaw isn't really an issue. Stop it or leave the list. Thanks.
- d.
On 8/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, whether your querulousness is intentional (as "trolling" is something done deliberately) or just a personality flaw isn't really an issue. Stop it or leave the list. Thanks.
Considering that you just gave me a cool link to check out (http://okfn.org/geo/), I'll agree to drop this thread, and any time I think about coming back to it I'll check out that and related links instead. :)
Thanks.
Anthony
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/30/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I have no idea where he did it
Then buzz off, troll.
You intentionally misquoted me, but I'm the troll?
I didn't misquote you.
"The first time Jimbo decided to restrict editing and call it becoming more open"
You used the word "and" in your claim. Do trolls come from an alternate universe where and has been redefined as OR?
Your logic would have me expecting you to agree with this statement: "Anthony is a homicidal pedophile AND he posts to this list."
On 8/30/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/30/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I have no idea where he did it
Then buzz off, troll.
You intentionally misquoted me, but I'm the troll?
I didn't misquote you.
Yes, you did. You asked the question "where" did this happen, as though that was a question which had a reasonable answer (in the study, with a candlestick?). I pointed out that your question of "where" was meaningless, and then proceeded to describe what happened. You responded by quoting half of this response and then calling me a troll.
"The first time Jimbo decided to restrict editing and call it becoming more open"
You used the word "and" in your claim. Do trolls come from an alternate universe where and has been redefined as OR?
Absolutely not. Again I ask you which part of this claim you're denying. Are you saying it was a different person who closed new page creation and claimed that Wikipedia is getting more open?
Your logic would have me expecting you to agree with this statement: "Anthony is a homicidal pedophile AND he posts to this list."
And your logic would have me responding to that with "where was I a homicidal pedophile and post to the list".
Anyway, I shouldn't be feeding the troll. To get back on topic, *this FAQ* is dishonest, regardless of what happened in the past. Look at the very beginning of it: " * What is changing?
We want to open up editing without damaging the reader's experience."
Is that what's changing? Wouldn't it be better to answer the question from the beginning?
As was pointed out by someone else, *who* wants to open up editing? And who decided this was the best way to do this?
Anthony
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/30/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Did what? You deny he's restricted editing in the past, or that he called it becoming more open?
Where did Jimbo "decide to restrict editing" and then "called it becoming more open".
I have no idea where he did it, but one instance would be when creation of new articles was restricted.
...
He said it on his blog, IIRC. It was in reply to (I believe) that textfiles.com guy, Scott something (or was it Nicholas Carr?), who was going around saying that semi-protection proved Wikipedia was a failure. It was mentioned here several times.
Here we go: http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/17/the-new-york-times-...
:"Let me rewrite the headline and first paragraph for them: "Wikipedia Becomes More Open""
~maru
On 8/30/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I have no idea where he did it, but one instance would be when creation of new articles was restricted.
...
He said it on his blog, IIRC. It was in reply to (I believe) that textfiles.com guy, Scott something (or was it Nicholas Carr?), who was going around saying that semi-protection proved Wikipedia was a failure.
Um, Anthony is referring to it becoming less possible for new users to make accounts (certainly a drop in open-ness); you are referring to semi-protection (something different entirely and _arguably_ an improvement in open-ness).
On 30/08/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Um, Anthony is referring to it becoming less possible for new users to make accounts (certainly a drop in open-ness)
Er, when did this happen?
- d.
On 8/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Um, Anthony is referring to it becoming less possible for new users to make accounts (certainly a drop in open-ness)
Er, when did this happen?
Um, I naturally meant "less possible for new users to make article".
I don't understand how you misunderstood...
On 30/08/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Um, Anthony is referring to it becoming less possible for new users to make accounts (certainly a drop in open-ness)
Er, when did this happen?
Um, I naturally meant "less possible for new users to make article". I don't understand how you misunderstood...
Gosh darn this fiendish "words" thing!
- d.
On 8/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Um, Anthony is referring to it becoming less possible for new users to make accounts (certainly a drop in open-ness)
Er, when did this happen?
Um, I naturally meant "less possible for new users to make article". I don't understand how you misunderstood...
Gosh darn this fiendish "words" thing!
- d.
I blame the developers. If they weren't so hung up on internationalization things or things like bug 550, they'd've uploaded the telepath patch and we could finally start on WikiMind: the intelligence anyone can edit!
~maru Real Soon Now
On 31/08/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
I blame the developers. If they weren't so hung up on internationalization things or things like bug 550, they'd've uploaded the telepath patch and we could finally start on WikiMind: the intelligence anyone can edit!
/me ducks for cover
If you think the flamewars are bad now, just imagine if we knew what each other *really* thought and couldn't even pretend to civility ...
- d.
At 23:00 +0100 30/8/06, David Gerard wrote:
On 30/08/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Um, Anthony is referring to it becoming less possible for new users to make accounts (certainly a drop in open-ness)
Er, when did this happen?
Um, I naturally meant "less possible for new users to make article". I don't understand how you misunderstood...
Gosh darn this fiendish "words" thing!
- d.
"The mind commands the body, and it obeys instantly; the mind commands itself, and is resisted." -- St. Augustine (354-430)
Gordo
Anthony wrote:
Where did Jimbo "decide to restrict editing" and then "called it becoming more open".
I have no idea where he did it, but one instance would be when creation of new articles was restricted.
How about we make a deal, Anthony?
If you can find where I said that the restriction on the creation of new articles was an instance of Wikipedia "becoming more open" then I will post a retraction publicly on my user talk page and on this mailing list.
And if you can't, then you will apologize to me publicly and leave this list for a period of one year.
For the record: I have been philosophically committed for a very long time to thinking about how to solve various problems with *more freedom* and *more transparency* rather than *more control*. Examples of how this has been successful would include the innovation of semi-protection rather than protection, and vandalism flagging rather than semi-protection (the innovation currently being proposed for test in the German wikipedia).
And preventing anons from creating new pages was an example of a restriction that, as far as I am aware, has not been particularly successful. I think the lesson we should take away from this is: we should continue to become more open.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
And preventing anons from creating new pages was an example of a restriction that, as far as I am aware, has not been particularly successful. I think the lesson we should take away from this is: we should continue to become more open.
I prefer to say that our openness is a means to an end and we should continue to experiment with technical and social tools that hopefully help us reach our goals. Being too closed will harm us by slowing our growth in depth, breadth and currentness. Being too open will harm our usefulness by overwhelming our quality-control mechanisms and even divert us from our mission.
A balance is needed. But letÂ’s not forget your key-note address at Wikimania that expressed a need to concentrate more on quality vs quantity for the larger wikis.
Preventing anons from creating new pages was an attempt to balance these competing forces by reducing the number of crap pages created by anons. However, much of the problem was moved to new users. Does that mean the experiment was a failure? Maybe. Then, it might just mean that creating a user account is too low of a bar to the creation of new pages.
I would like to see a much better analysis of this experiment that weighed the pros vs the cons. Only after that analysis is complete, should we decide to change the parameters of the experiment (such as adding more days to the age of an account before page creation is allowed) or to scrap the whole thing.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 30/08/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Non-logged in editors are not anonymous. In fact, the only way to effectively be anonymous is to create an account for every edit and log in.
You seem to be assuming that the wikipedia is not recording IP addresses, because it does not appear to. I wouldn't bet on it. There's probably logs.
Anthony
On 8/30/06, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to be assuming that the wikipedia is not recording IP addresses, because it does not appear to. I wouldn't bet on it. There's probably logs.
Assumeing the system hasn't changed since I last herd there are logs going back as far as 31 July.
It sounds similar to the proposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Timed_article_change_stabilisation_me...
On 31/08/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is in response to the somewhat silly English-language press we've had lately. I'll be sending copies of this out to the sources of recent articles on the subject that got it precisely backwards.
The following is, I understand, technically accurate, based on text from Amgine, Phillipp Birkin (de:wp), Jimbo and Mathias Schindler (I think), and comcom discussions (press relations being part of that job). Corrections welcomed - you have about five minutes.
(and geni, I expect you to ask how this makes the new patrollers' jobs easier - by having what's effectively a feed of new-editor and anonymous edits, is what I was thinking of.)
- d.
"Approved" versions on Wikipedia FAQ
- What is changing?
We want to open up editing without damaging the reader's experience.
We want to be more wiki and let editors edit freely, which is where all the good things come from. At present a small percentage of articles (a few hundred out of 1.5 million on the English language Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/) are locked or partially locked from editing. We want to open these up. But Wikipedia is a top 20 website (Alexa ratings, no. 17 on 3 month average; no. 15 on 30 August 2006 - http://www.alexa.com/), so we must keep it good for the readers.
The new feature will mean that edits from new or anonymous editors will be delayed before being shown to readers - they will see a 'flagged OK' version by default, with a link to the live version. The idea is to enhance the *reading* experience, and free us to enhance the *editing* experience. If vandalism can't be seen by the general public, there will be less motivation to vandalise.
Anonymous or new-editor edits will need to be approved by a logged-in editor. Of the thousands of editors on the large Wikipedias, many concentrate on checking revisions and dealing with odd changes and vandalism - this will assist their work and we do not expect new delays.
We are also considering a related feature to flag particular versions of articles as being of high quality. This is to a different end: a high-quality finished product. This will likely be tested first on the German language Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/), which has already had three stable editions released on CD and DVD, which have sold quite well. If the feature works there, it may be used on other language Wikipedias.
These features are not finished, so we don't have a lot of fine detail as to how it will all work as yet. But we hope this change will allow us to do things such as open up the George W. Bush article or even the front page itself to full unrestricted editing.
- When was this proposed?
Jimmy Wales asked for a time-delay feature for casual readers in late 2004; after very fast editing on the Indian Ocean tsunami produced a very high-quality article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake) very quickly, but with some highly visible vandalism; we've hotly discussed how to achieve stable high-quality editions of Wikipedia since almost the start of the project, in 2001. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What version would new editors be editing if they found an error on a page and attempted to edit what they thought was that page?
Semantically I would think they would have to update in turn from the latest available version in the database. There could quickly be problems with multiple versions of the page branching, and being hard to combine, if they were not editing the latest version.
Peter Ansell
On 03/09/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
What version would new editors be editing if they found an error on a page and attempted to edit what they thought was that page?
Hmm, I think they'd be editing the current version, not the version they could see at first.
Semantically I would think they would have to update in turn from the latest available version in the database. There could quickly be problems with multiple versions of the page branching, and being hard to combine, if they were not editing the latest version.
I doubt there are any plans to support branching.
But yes, this initiative would make things easier for *regular* editors but somewhat more difficult for *casual* editors. One of the de: people involved in the initiative pointed this one out to me when I was writing the above, and so I think we can assume they are very aware of it and will be watching carefully.
Note that the above FAQ is now pretty much superfluous - there's a much more detailed one on meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2006_proposed_approval_for_anonymous_edits
and Jimbo has written a piece on the subject that got onto Slashdot:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/31/2224230
- d.
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 31/08/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is in response to the somewhat silly English-language press we've had lately. I'll be sending copies of this out to the sources of recent articles on the subject that got it precisely backwards.
The following is, I understand, technically accurate, based on text from Amgine, Phillipp Birkin (de:wp), Jimbo and Mathias Schindler (I think), and comcom discussions (press relations being part of that job). Corrections welcomed - you have about five minutes.
(and geni, I expect you to ask how this makes the new patrollers' jobs easier - by having what's effectively a feed of new-editor and anonymous edits, is what I was thinking of.)
- d.
"Approved" versions on Wikipedia FAQ
- What is changing?
We want to open up editing without damaging the reader's experience.
We want to be more wiki and let editors edit freely, which is where all the good things come from. At present a small percentage of articles (a few hundred out of 1.5 million on the English language Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/) are locked or partially locked from editing. We want to open these up. But Wikipedia is a top 20 website (Alexa ratings, no. 17 on 3 month average; no. 15 on 30 August 2006 - http://www.alexa.com/), so we must keep it good for the readers.
The new feature will mean that edits from new or anonymous editors will be delayed before being shown to readers - they will see a 'flagged OK' version by default, with a link to the live version. The idea is to enhance the *reading* experience, and free us to enhance the *editing* experience. If vandalism can't be seen by the general public, there will be less motivation to vandalise.
Anonymous or new-editor edits will need to be approved by a logged-in editor. Of the thousands of editors on the large Wikipedias, many concentrate on checking revisions and dealing with odd changes and vandalism - this will assist their work and we do not expect new delays.
We are also considering a related feature to flag particular versions of articles as being of high quality. This is to a different end: a high-quality finished product. This will likely be tested first on the German language Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/), which has already had three stable editions released on CD and DVD, which have sold quite well. If the feature works there, it may be used on other language Wikipedias.
These features are not finished, so we don't have a lot of fine detail as to how it will all work as yet. But we hope this change will allow us to do things such as open up the George W. Bush article or even the front page itself to full unrestricted editing.
- When was this proposed?
Jimmy Wales asked for a time-delay feature for casual readers in late 2004; after very fast editing on the Indian Ocean tsunami produced a very high-quality article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake) very quickly, but with some highly visible vandalism; we've hotly discussed how to achieve stable high-quality editions of Wikipedia since almost the start of the project, in 2001. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What version would new editors be editing if they found an error on a page and attempted to edit what they thought was that page?
Semantically I would think they would have to update in turn from the latest available version in the database. There could quickly be problems with multiple versions of the page branching, and being hard to combine, if they were not editing the latest version.
Peter Ansell _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My understanding of the proposal and feature is that only one version of the article is editable. The Edit this page link is removed and replaced with "view current version".
SKL
If the 'view current version' feature is there, will most editors be able to go through the unchecked revisions and mark them as ok or not ok, then edit the final version to remove the factual error?
On 9/4/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 31/08/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is in response to the somewhat silly English-language press we've had lately. I'll be sending copies of this out to the sources of recent articles on the subject that got it precisely backwards.
The following is, I understand, technically accurate, based on text from Amgine, Phillipp Birkin (de:wp), Jimbo and Mathias Schindler (I think), and comcom discussions (press relations being part of that job). Corrections welcomed - you have about five minutes.
(and geni, I expect you to ask how this makes the new patrollers' jobs easier - by having what's effectively a feed of new-editor and anonymous edits, is what I was thinking of.)
- d.
"Approved" versions on Wikipedia FAQ
- What is changing?
We want to open up editing without damaging the reader's experience.
We want to be more wiki and let editors edit freely, which is where all the good things come from. At present a small percentage of articles (a few hundred out of 1.5 million on the English language Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/) are locked or partially locked from editing. We want to open these up. But Wikipedia is a top 20 website (Alexa ratings, no. 17 on 3 month average; no. 15 on 30 August 2006 - http://www.alexa.com/), so we must keep it good for the readers.
The new feature will mean that edits from new or anonymous editors will be delayed before being shown to readers - they will see a 'flagged OK' version by default, with a link to the live version. The idea is to enhance the *reading* experience, and free us to enhance the *editing* experience. If vandalism can't be seen by the general public, there will be less motivation to vandalise.
Anonymous or new-editor edits will need to be approved by a logged-in editor. Of the thousands of editors on the large Wikipedias, many concentrate on checking revisions and dealing with odd changes and vandalism - this will assist their work and we do not expect new delays.
We are also considering a related feature to flag particular versions of articles as being of high quality. This is to a different end: a high-quality finished product. This will likely be tested first on the German language Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/), which has already had three stable editions released on CD and DVD, which have sold quite well. If the feature works there, it may be used on other language Wikipedias.
These features are not finished, so we don't have a lot of fine detail as to how it will all work as yet. But we hope this change will allow us to do things such as open up the George W. Bush article or even the front page itself to full unrestricted editing.
- When was this proposed?
Jimmy Wales asked for a time-delay feature for casual readers in late 2004; after very fast editing on the Indian Ocean tsunami produced a very high-quality article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake) very quickly, but with some highly visible vandalism; we've hotly discussed how to achieve stable high-quality editions of Wikipedia since almost the start of the project, in 2001. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What version would new editors be editing if they found an error on a page and attempted to edit what they thought was that page?
Semantically I would think they would have to update in turn from the latest available version in the database. There could quickly be problems with multiple versions of the page branching, and being hard to combine, if they were not editing the latest version.
Peter Ansell _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My understanding of the proposal and feature is that only one version of the article is editable. The Edit this page link is removed and replaced with "view current version".
SKL _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l