http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Daily_premi...
I'm sure if this feature described here ever gets implemented that this section title won't be used for it. The idea sparked above with the suggestions to divert or prevent edit wars and the users' desire to stay anonymous. * When you see any entry for a change made, the user's name or IP address is not shown in that entry. After you make an edit to the page that was changed, you then get to see who edited it in the entry, but that view is only available for a day from your last change.
This would encourage people to focus on quality of content rather than who made the content. The would also apply for administrators. Only stewards and bureaucrats can see who made the change at anytime.
For example, if you have not edited a page and you view its history, you would see something like:
* (cur) (last) 13:31, 4 March 2006 (good q!) * (cur) (last) 13:12, 4 March 2006 (→1RR instead of 3RR for not logged users ?) * (cur) (last) 13:12, 4 March 2006 (→1RR instead of 3RR for not logged users ?) * (cur) (last) 13:08, 4 March 2006 (→1RR instead of 3RR for not logged users ?) * (cur) (last) 13:07, 4 March 2006 (Hmm, everyone should do it anyway :))
The watchlist would look something like:
* (diff) (hist) . . Computer system; 06:31 . . (→See also) * (diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia talk:Stable versions; 03:39 . . (→Semi-automation - recent stable version detector) * (diff) (hist) . . m Computer programming; 02:04 . . (→Software development - bypass disambig) * (diff) (hist) . . Computer security audit; 01:01 . .
Recent changes would look something like:
* (diff) (hist) . . Fiscal conservatism; 14:33 . . (→Notable Fiscal Conservatives) * (diff) (hist) . . End of the Spear; 14:33 . . (replacing deprecated {{web reference}} with {{cite web}} using AWB) * (User creation log); 14:33 . . Lettaylor (Talk) (New user (Talk | contribs | block)) * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Dogon people; 14:33 . . (→Completely by Robert Temple? - Re)
As you see, there is no significance to who made the changes in the above views. This does not prevent somebody that reverts vandalism to track down who made the vandalism, as, once the vandalism is reverted the users name is then seen as we common know. Anything further vandalism by that user can be tracked down as usual.
Of course, if anybody signs their name, who made the entry is always revealed. If we want a feature to doublecheck if the tildes were used to sign (in case somebody forges a name), an extra flag on the change entries could be made to denote that.
Some worry that I don't spend enough time in article space, but I also am a developer of a wiki.
Can I get some feedback for this kind of policy that is really more technological?
Jonathan wrote:
Can I get some feedback for this kind of policy that is really more technological?
How would rollback work?
Chris
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Can I get some feedback for this kind of policy that is really more technological?
How would rollback work?
Chris
Instead of an edit summary of: (Reverted edit of Somebody, changed back to last version by 304.107.47.123)
There would be: (Reverted edit made at 03:10 20 March 2000, changed back to last version made at 03:04 20 March 2000)
Jonathan
On 3/4/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Daily_premi...
I'm sure if this feature described here ever gets implemented that this section title won't be used for it. The idea sparked above with the suggestions to divert or prevent edit wars and the users' desire to stay anonymous.
- When you see any entry for a change made, the user's name or IP
address is not shown in that entry. After you make an edit to the page that was changed, you then get to see who edited it in the entry, but that view is only available for a day from your last change.
This would encourage people to focus on quality of content rather than who made the content. The would also apply for administrators. Only stewards and bureaucrats can see who made the change at anytime.
For example, if you have not edited a page and you view its history, you would see something like:
- (cur) (last) 13:31, 4 March 2006 (good q!)
- (cur) (last) 13:12, 4 March 2006 (→1RR instead of 3RR for not logged
users ?)
- (cur) (last) 13:12, 4 March 2006 (→1RR instead of 3RR for not logged
users ?)
- (cur) (last) 13:08, 4 March 2006 (→1RR instead of 3RR for not logged
users ?)
- (cur) (last) 13:07, 4 March 2006 (Hmm, everyone should do it anyway :))
The watchlist would look something like:
- (diff) (hist) . . Computer system; 06:31 . . (→See also)
- (diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia talk:Stable versions; 03:39 . .
(→Semi-automation - recent stable version detector)
- (diff) (hist) . . m Computer programming; 02:04 . . (→Software
development - bypass disambig)
- (diff) (hist) . . Computer security audit; 01:01 . .
Recent changes would look something like:
- (diff) (hist) . . Fiscal conservatism; 14:33 . . (→Notable Fiscal
Conservatives)
- (diff) (hist) . . End of the Spear; 14:33 . . (replacing deprecated
{{web reference}} with {{cite web}} using AWB)
- (User creation log); 14:33 . . Lettaylor (Talk) (New user (Talk |
contribs | block))
- (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Dogon people; 14:33 . . (→Completely by Robert
Temple? - Re)
As you see, there is no significance to who made the changes in the above views. This does not prevent somebody that reverts vandalism to track down who made the vandalism, as, once the vandalism is reverted the users name is then seen as we common know. Anything further vandalism by that user can be tracked down as usual.
Of course, if anybody signs their name, who made the entry is always revealed. If we want a feature to doublecheck if the tildes were used to sign (in case somebody forges a name), an extra flag on the change entries could be made to denote that.
Some worry that I don't spend enough time in article space, but I also am a developer of a wiki.
Can I get some feedback for this kind of policy that is really more technological? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This essentially removes a lot of the accountability of edits, though. What's the point of having things like 3RR when the only way to verify that one person is reverting multiple times is by dragging a steward or bcrat over to an article? There are so many content disputes raging at any given time we'd either have to massively beef up the bcrat force or watch articles spiral into doom as a content dispute rages on without anyone being available to help straighten things out.
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
Jay Converse wrote:
This essentially removes a lot of the accountability of edits, though. What's the point of having things like 3RR when the only way to verify that one person is reverting multiple times is by dragging a steward or bcrat over to an article? There are so many content disputes raging at any given time we'd either have to massively beef up the bcrat force or watch articles spiral into doom as a content dispute rages on without anyone being available to help straighten things out.
-- Jay Converse
Such revert wars can be checked by technological means also, so we would not need to beef up stewards or bureaucrats. For example, if the software detects a revert war, then it can allow admins to see who has edited.
Jonathan
On 3/4/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
Jay Converse wrote:
This essentially removes a lot of the accountability of edits, though. What's the point of having things like 3RR when the only way to verify
that
one person is reverting multiple times is by dragging a steward or bcrat over to an article? There are so many content disputes raging at any
given
time we'd either have to massively beef up the bcrat force or watch
articles
spiral into doom as a content dispute rages on without anyone being available to help straighten things out.
-- Jay Converse
Such revert wars can be checked by technological means also, so we would not need to beef up stewards or bureaucrats. For example, if the software detects a revert war, then it can allow admins to see who has edited.
Jonathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But how do we code in what is and isn't a revert war? Things like that usually require a judgment call, so waiting for it to get "flagged" just to see what's going on can waste time.
Also, I'm an idiot when it comes to copyright stuff, but don't we have to publicly attribute everything under the GFDL?
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
Jay Converse wrote:
But how do we code in what is and isn't a revert war? Things like that usually require a judgment call, so waiting for it to get "flagged" just to see what's going on can waste time.
Also, I'm an idiot when it comes to copyright stuff, but don't we have to publicly attribute everything under the GFDL?
As for revert-war detection, it was only an example I provided. The first technological step I recommend would be to not code it; instead, implement an option on for the admins to simply click on "reveal" (or such) to see everyone's identity. There is no wait to get flagged in this first implementation. However, such click would also carry an entry to a log file. The log file provides evidence where such needs exists to see identities. The next step would be to design a program to match the needs.
Likewise, the first implementation of such anonymity that I recommend, would be just a user preference option. No need to do a sweep and force everybody to accept such a view.
As for the GFDL, I researched it and found that only a list of authors is needed. Each authors contribution does not need to be linked directly to their modification. The history page has indirectly satisfied the list of authors required by the GFDL. This kind of anonymity is not to completely keep everybody anonymous, so a list of authors is good.
Jonathan
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:09:46 -0800, you wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Daily_premi...
I will pass this on to the POV pushers and edit warriors, it's exactly what they've been asking for :-) Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:09:46 -0800, you wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Daily_premi...
I will pass this on to the POV pushers and edit warriors, it's exactly what they've been asking for :-) Guy (JzG)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Peace_Process :)
Jonathan
How does this help the vast majority of peaceful editing that goes on? It seems it would just lead to conusion, lack of teamwork, and lack of recognition for one's efforts. If you look at the history of an article you've worked on, you like to be able to distinguish edits from users who haven't edited that article before.
I also believe users are already pretty anonymous - it's no effort for a user to get themselves a second or third account if they really want it.
Steve
On 3/4/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Daily_premi...
I'm sure if this feature described here ever gets implemented that this section title won't be used for it. The idea sparked above with the suggestions to divert or prevent edit wars and the users' desire to stay anonymous.
As an aside, Dzonatas has been agitating for watering down the [[WP:3RR]] policy lately, so perhaps that will shed some light on this latest proposal.
k
On 3/4/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
How does this help the vast majority of peaceful editing that goes on? It seems it would just lead to conusion, lack of teamwork, and lack of recognition for one's efforts. If you look at the history of an article you've worked on, you like to be able to distinguish edits from users who haven't edited that article before.
I also believe users are already pretty anonymous - it's no effort for a user to get themselves a second or third account if they really want it.
Steve
On 3/4/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Daily_premi...
I'm sure if this feature described here ever gets implemented that this section title won't be used for it. The idea sparked above with the suggestions to divert or prevent edit wars and the users' desire to stay anonymous.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Katefan0 wrote:
As an aside, Dzonatas has been agitating for watering down the [[WP:3RR]] policy lately, so perhaps that will shed some light on this latest proposal.
k
Surely you wouldn't want me to public ally accuse you of anything. I can provide a link and easily make an accusation that you are against any effort to make Wikipedia a recommended resource by an accredited institution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Wikid...
If there are changes of mine that you really question, please make an appropriate page or thread for us to debate all the technical details of them.
Unless you really care to backup and defend all your accusations against me, then I recommend...
...Wikilove,
Jonathan
On 3/4/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
As an aside, Dzonatas has been agitating for watering down the [[WP:3RR]] policy lately, so perhaps that will shed some light on this latest proposal.
k
I guess this is the best argument in favour of Jonathan's idea so far. If Jonathan had been able to post anonymously you wouldn't have been able to try and poison the discussion by bringing up his character. Same thing applies to Wikipedia proper - contributions should be evaluated by what they are, not by who wrote them.
-- mvh Björn
On 3/4/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
As an aside, Dzonatas has been agitating for watering down the
[[WP:3RR]]
policy lately, so perhaps that will shed some light on this latest
proposal.
k
I guess this is the best argument in favour of Jonathan's idea so far. If Jonathan had been able to post anonymously you wouldn't have been able to try and poison the discussion by bringing up his character. Same thing applies to Wikipedia proper - contributions should be evaluated by what they are, not by who wrote them.
Not only would Jonathan's idea not have helped in this case, but the fact that Jonathan was blocked several times for 3RR violations, then tried to re-write 3RR so he wouldn't be blocked in the future, and now is trying to get Wikipedia adjusted somehow so that future 3RR violations will be extremely difficult to track, is not "poisoining the discussion", but rather entirely relevant.
Jay.
jayjg wrote:
Not only would Jonathan's idea not have helped in this case, but the fact that Jonathan was blocked several times for 3RR violations, then tried to re-write 3RR so he wouldn't be blocked in the future, and now is trying to get Wikipedia adjusted somehow so that future 3RR violations will be extremely difficult to track, is not "poisoining the discussion", but rather entirely relevant.
Jay.
Jayjg, all you have done since I met you is to accuse me also. Please, do me the diginity of an actual argument with facts. If you want to point out how terrible of a person that I am, take the honorable time to do a proper anecdotal presentation. For example --
Blocks should have no relevance to punishment. What you have argued is to try to validate a block as punishment and label anybody that has been blocked as perimission to continually accuse them of wrongdoing. That is straight out libel.
- libel n. (a) false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. (b) The act of presenting such material to the public.
Let's examine the order of events more closely:
Katefan0 posted a message to wikien-l: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-February/040207.html Katefan0 declared there was an "edit-war" at on the 3RR page after a single edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThree-revert_rule&... The edit was done by me because I notice a redundancy. There were to similar paragraphs that caused confusion. Later, JzG removed and merged the same paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThree-revert_rule&... However, NOBODY complained about such similar edit. BUT, they still complain about my first edit as "watering down" or "to re-write 3RR so he wouldn't be blocked in the future."
Let's examine more closely what has happened here.
I was blocked. I believe I was blocked unfairly. However, I read the 3RR page and other pages that asured me that the blocks are not punitive. As you see by this Jayjg reply, such replies do not purely reflect a "not punitive" attitude.
Blocks are a preventative measure only. They shouldn't be used to discredit someone. It's to easy for any admin to block a user. The ease should not be taken advantage of to reflect on the personality. Especially, when blocks are given out blindly just to stop an edit war. It by no means has any justification as to actually who caused the edit war.
Jayjg, if you so desirely want to continue to ruin my reputation -- THEN WITH DIGNITY, PLEASE -- go dig out my history and let's examine the reasons why I was blocked. However, remember... as you threatened me... that WAS a wp:point violation to do so: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThree-revert_rule&...
Jonathan
On 3/5/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Not only would Jonathan's idea not have helped in this case, but the fact that Jonathan was blocked several times for 3RR violations, then tried to re-write 3RR so he wouldn't be blocked in the future, and now is trying
to
get Wikipedia adjusted somehow so that future 3RR violations will be extremely difficult to track, is not "poisoining the discussion", but
rather
entirely relevant.
Jay.
Jayjg, all you have done since I met you is to accuse me also. Please, do me the diginity of an actual argument with facts. If you want to point out how terrible of a person that I am, take the honorable time to do a proper anecdotal presentation.
I'm not pointing out "how terrible a person" you are, I'm pointing out that you decided to adjust the 3RR policy after you kept getting blocked for it, and admitted as much on the Talk: page of the policy in question: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AThree-revert_rule... ]
I was blocked. I believe I was blocked unfairly. However, I read the 3RR
page and other pages that asured me that the blocks are not punitive. As you see by this Jayjg reply, such replies do not purely reflect a "not punitive" attitude.
Blocks are a preventative measure only. They shouldn't be used to discredit someone. It's to easy for any admin to block a user. The ease should not be taken advantage of to reflect on the personality. Especially, when blocks are given out blindly just to stop an edit war. It by no means has any justification as to actually who caused the edit war.
Given that you were blocked more than once violating 3RR on the same article, continued to insist that your reverts were not reverts, then tried to change the policy to stop yourself from getting blocked in the future, and even now continue to insist that it was someone else who "caused the edit war", it's quite obvious that the blocks were needed to stop further 3RR violations, and were in no way "punitive".
Jay.
jayjg wrote:
I'm not pointing out "how terrible a person" you are, I'm pointing out that you decided to adjust the 3RR policy after you kept getting blocked for it, and admitted as much on the Talk: page of the policy in question: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AThree-revert_rule... ]
Perhaps, you really don't realize how your words look like from this side. It appears you really do not intend to try to understand this situation. Your words look like you accuse me.
I just wrote a long reply and erased it. Why? Because it wasn't about how well I could defend myself against you, which I tried. The point is that I should not even have to be in this position to defend myself. I didn't come to Wikipedia to get randomly stung by a block out of nowhere and then ridiculed from there on. Do you understand this? Perhaps you just really don't know what its like for someone that is newer to Wikipedia then you are. I been around for a year on Wikipedia, so I don't claim to be that new. However, a fresh look a these documents should mean a lot, but with the impression you gave me you don't seem to care.
The fact that I did get block makes me a perfect person to understand the situation of events of the block. Someone that has never been blocked before does not actually know when they will get blocked. Who is to really say if an edit is an improvement or a 3RR type revert? My experience shows that an admin that blocks does it more by blind judgment. Given the best possible assumption of good-faith -- blind judgment -- there is always room to consider the blocks as misapplied. I was aggravated by the blocks, but I did not go file a RfC or other case to destroy the admin that blocked me.
Did you personally intervene in these situations? Do you personally intervene in any 3RR report? Those are all excellent candidates where people actually need someone else to step in and help the editors work together. Do you want the image of Wikipedia to be -- "WE DON'T HELP -- WE JUST BLOCK YOU FOR TRYING -- AND, WE MOCK YOU AFTER YOUR FIRST BLOCK"????
Any 3RR report should have an admin intervene before there is a block. If there is clearly no vandalism and the editors persistently edit war... protect the page. Look at the history of the 3RR, that is how it started. Now, the block is taken as the first step. It was the wrong step -- go back to a preference of intervention over the trigger-happy block. People want to leave Wikipedia because of attitudes like yours that accuse them of things. Oh my god, they are just trying to edit. It's open content. And, they get blindsided. Harsh. These few admins demonstrate good adminship for the rest when they don't even try to intervene -- they just block. People want to leave Wikipedia because these blocks say -- "we don't have time to help you -- go away."
Anyways, what did I admit to? That WMC blocked me. That another admin gave me advice, which I inserted verbatim into the 3RR page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThree-revert_rule&...
And, later you reverted it with absolutely no attempt to try to improve it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule&di...
Given that you were blocked more than once violating 3RR on the same article,
I was blocked from the same article by the same person who reported me twice. Given that it was not on different articles by different individudals -- that says something. Also, I've edited articles often up until the first block, which was about more than 3/4 of a year without problems of a block. There were controversies, but these controversies got solved on our own. Somehow, the one article I did get blocked on carries a different attitude for what a revert is about. Perhaps, on the other articles, we sincerely tried to improve each others edits and we made lots of active edits throughout the day. Of course, we did not always agree, but little by little we found where we did agree. The one article I did get blocked on provided no room for agreement -- it was only one way or the highway.
continued to insist that your reverts were not reverts,
Here is where you tried to "clarify" that reverts were not about being "identical": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARevert&diff=406161... That was after the events of where I was blocked. It may have helped if that was in there before. It's pretty slimy to say "it's perfectly clear" after the fact. Obviously, what everybody thinks what constitutes a "revert" is not the same across the board. It is not about me saying that my reverts are not those kind of reverts, but it is about me saying that my reverts or edits should not have counted as 3RR-type reverts. Further, if they did, it is about me saying "where is the admin intervention to help us understand that we are in a edit-war and help us work together."
Two active or aggressive editors could look like they are in a revert-war, but that could be entirely not the case at all. The 3RR page doesn't care what intentions two editors have or of their style to edit the pages. That is a problem with the 3RR page -- not the editors.
then tried to change the policy to stop yourself from getting blocked in the future,
If I really wanted to be that stupid, I could submit a viral patch to Mediawiki to enable a backdoor to any block. Even yet, I still know other technological ways to get around a block right now with no patch. I'm not that stupid about the technology in use. I just don't take advantage of such bugs -- or features.
I've showed a professor at a college how I installed a simple program that totally took over Windows with all it's security features up. I don't go around and exploit that fact. These are things developers keep sacred, and you just have to trust us.
You have badly mistaken my intentions. I only wanted to help the situation by my experience -- sort of "debug" the situation. You believe it needs no help. You forget that it is open content, which implores for help.
and even now continue to insist that it was someone else who "caused the edit war", it's quite obvious that the blocks were needed to stop further 3RR violations,
You did not even try to intervene. If there was no active vandalism, there is no need to block. I run my own mediawiki and know that I never had to block spam to stop it. I just had to get clever on how to detect it and prevent it. Some of it was by a technological change, and some of it was by methods that you also have access to change. I know for a fact that blocks are not needed.
As for who caused the edit-war, go look at the quality of edits. Go see who tried to incorporate the other editors' versions. Then, tell me who made identical reverts each and every time with absolutely no attempt to improve the other's edits. Then, tell me who got reported and blocked. And, you think this is right that I got blocked even though I did make regular edits like everybody else to try to improve the article? And, you think it is right that every edit of mine was "undone," but I got blamed that I "undid" the other editors contribution even though I incorporated changes? Hello!
Obviously, the description of what to do when such a situation happens was not clear.
and were in no way "punitive".
However, you posted a reply here like you tracked me down and pointed out my history of being blocked. What you have done is certainly not a "preventative" action. What you and a few others have done to me is to mistreat me. You treated me like I am stupid and a public threat to damage Wikipedia, and such actions to notify others about me by your opinion is punitive if not libel.
I don't look for pity because I know it is honorable not to insinuate. I simply want to be treated with dignity. If I am wrong, let it be humility. Unfortunately, there has been a lack dignity and humility.
Jonathan
Steve Bennett wrote:
How does this help the vast majority of peaceful editing that goes on? It seems it would just lead to conusion, lack of teamwork, and lack of recognition for one's efforts. If you look at the history of an article you've worked on, you like to be able to distinguish edits from users who haven't edited that article before.
I also believe users are already pretty anonymous - it's no effort for a user to get themselves a second or third account if they really want it.
Steve
It's meant to improve quality by anonymity -- not to keep people completely anonymous. Even if people trust another's recent edit by their name, it would be nice to know that such work is still being scrutinized as well as every other edit. The only argument I've seen against it is based on a preference for convenience. One must ask -- does such convenience affect quality?
"...technology often forces us to choose between quality and convenience." (Alan C. Kay, Computers, networks and education, /Scientific American/, September 1991).
http://www.squeakland.org/school/HTML/sci_amer_article/sci_amer_03.html
Consider that the open content is pretty liberal, are we just peacefully editing or peacefully tinkering? That same article has this to say about it: "Media can also lure us into thinking we are creating by design when in fact we are just tinkering. Consider the difficulty of transforming clay-a perfectly malleable and responsive substance into anything aesthetically satisfying. Perfect "debugability," or malleability, does not make up for lack of an internal image and shaping skills. Unfortunately, computers lend themselves to such "clay pushing"; they tempt users to try to debug constructions into existence by trial and error."
I don't see how anonymity can actually ruin distinguished efforts, peaceful editing, or lack of teamwork if the anonymity is not to completely keep people anonymous. One can always sign there user name to an entry and reveal who they are. Given there are options to reveal who made the change, it's not kept a secret. Just the identity of who made the change is not obvious to the casual reader, which includes editors that haven't edited the article for a day.
As for efforts, there are aways other means that can be developed. For example, a stats page that reveals who contributed the most to an article, or a page that lists all the authors of an article (which is needed by the GFDL anyways.)
Jonathan
On 3/4/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
Consider that the open content is pretty liberal, are we just peacefully editing or peacefully tinkering? That same article has this to say about it: "Media can also lure us into thinking we are creating by design when in fact we are just tinkering. Consider the difficulty of transforming clay-a perfectly malleable and responsive substance into anything aesthetically satisfying. Perfect "debugability," or malleability, does not make up for lack of an internal image and shaping skills. Unfortunately, computers lend themselves to such "clay pushing"; they tempt users to try to debug constructions into existence by trial and error."
This is a nice analogy. I'm not sure what it has to do with this issue, but I like it anyway :)
I don't see how anonymity can actually ruin distinguished efforts, peaceful editing, or lack of teamwork if the anonymity is not to completely keep people anonymous. One can always sign there user name to an entry and reveal who they are. Given there are options to reveal who made the change, it's not kept a secret. Just the identity of who made the change is not obvious to the casual reader, which includes editors that haven't edited the article for a day.
It seems to me like going into a functioning business and telling everyone to don disguises and continue working.
IMHO, this whole idea is a bit misguided by some ideal that every edit should be considered independently of who made it. Which would imply that reputations and past history are no indicators of future performance. Which is demonstrably false...
It's not like we run around reverting edits by problem editors without reading them. But if a trusted editor, and a known vandal each made the same edit - say, changing the population of a city without citing a source - then we should treat the two cases very differently. Treating them the same is denying ourselves valuable information.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
It seems to me like going into a functioning business and telling everyone to don disguises and continue working.
Not quite what I really meant to do. I did present the idea as if it had such thrust because it could have been a simple step based on a need. Now, it does not seem like a step.
Treating them the same is denying ourselves valuable information.
True, which is why I don't think this idea would stay effective -- at least under the design of Mediawiki 1.5.
It appears there is a substantial interest to the idea, and there may be a way to implement a subset in the future. I want to be able to guarantee a way to match the interest that was created, but that would be foolish of me. Even to create this as an user preference may even give a false security for quality. When it is a choice between convenience and quality, we can freely choose either one. When it is a choice between quality and valuable information, the evidence of valuable information is higher quality.
Jonathan
Jonathan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Daily_premi...
I'm sure if this feature described here ever gets implemented that this section title won't be used for it. The idea sparked above with the suggestions to divert or prevent edit wars and the users' desire to stay anonymous.
- When you see any entry for a change made, the user's name or IP
address is not shown in that entry. After you make an edit to the page that was changed, you then get to see who edited it in the entry, but that view is only available for a day from your last change.
This would encourage people to focus on quality of content rather than who made the content. The would also apply for administrators. Only stewards and bureaucrats can see who made the change at anytime.
<snip>
As you see, there is no significance to who made the changes in the above views. This does not prevent somebody that reverts vandalism to track down who made the vandalism, as, once the vandalism is reverted the users name is then seen as we common know. Anything further vandalism by that user can be tracked down as usual.
Of course, if anybody signs their name, who made the entry is always revealed. If we want a feature to doublecheck if the tildes were used to sign (in case somebody forges a name), an extra flag on the change entries could be made to denote that.
Some worry that I don't spend enough time in article space, but I also am a developer of a wiki.
Can I get some feedback for this kind of policy that is really more technological?
Recent changes patrol.
Suppose I see someone make a change to an article. If a username I recognise as being a "good user", I won't bother to check it. If it's a username I haven't seen before, or is redlinked, I'll probably check it. If it's an IP, I'm very likely to check it.
Removing usernames from contributions means that RC patrol becomes insanely harder. It also means that it's impossible to later go and say "User 127.0.0.1 vandalised articles X, Y and Z", because the username is removed from the contributions.
In a perfect world, we could have perfect anonymity in this matter (actually, we wouldn't /need/ anonymity), but the world is far from perfect. I'm not going to buy into the "this proposal amounts to trolling" argument, except to say this: removing usernames from contributions would be a troll's paradise.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
In a perfect world, we could have perfect anonymity in this matter (actually, we wouldn't /need/ anonymity), but the world is far from perfect. I'm not going to buy into the "this proposal amounts to trolling" argument, except to say this: removing usernames from contributions would be a troll's paradise.
And probably a violation of the GFDL as far as I can tell. I'm proud of my edits (well, 99.99% of them :), I _want_ my edits to be attributed to me. If Wikipedia were to start hiding them I would be nonplussed.
Besides which I can't really see any reason why this change would be useful in the first place. If a person wants anonymity they can just pick a random username and log in with that. The IP records are gone after a few weeks, I'm told. As long as they don't engage in sock-puppetry I don't see a problem.
On 3/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And probably a violation of the GFDL as far as I can tell. I'm proud of my edits (well, 99.99% of them :), I _want_ my edits to be attributed to me. If Wikipedia were to start hiding them I would be nonplussed.
You raise an interesting question which has occurred to me before. There are topics I would consider editing on, but I don't really want them to come up in my list of contributions. Yet I feel like I should retain my copyright on those contributions...I can't think of any solution though.
Steve
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
You raise an interesting question which has occurred to me before. There are topics I would consider editing on, but I don't really want them to come up in my list of contributions. Yet I feel like I should retain my copyright on those contributions...I can't think of any solution though.
Are you bringing this up because someone mentioned [[Donkey Punch]] in another thread? ;)
On 3/6/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Are you bringing this up because someone mentioned [[Donkey Punch]] in another thread? ;)
No, but it's a perfect example. I was going to change the intro text to "alleged sexual positions" or something, but...I really don't want Donkey Punch showing up in my history *forever*.
Steve
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And probably a violation of the GFDL as far as I can tell. I'm proud of my edits (well, 99.99% of them :), I _want_ my edits to be attributed to me. If Wikipedia were to start hiding them I would be nonplussed.
You raise an interesting question which has occurred to me before. There are topics I would consider editing on, but I don't really want them to come up in my list of contributions. Yet I feel like I should retain my copyright on those contributions...I can't think of any solution though.
Steve
Sockpupet accounts. Unless you legaly have to assert your copyright you don't have to admit haveing made them.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And probably a violation of the GFDL as far as I can tell. I'm proud of my edits (well, 99.99% of them :), I _want_ my edits to be attributed to me. If Wikipedia were to start hiding them I would be nonplussed.
You raise an interesting question which has occurred to me before. There are topics I would consider editing on, but I don't really want them to come up in my list of contributions. Yet I feel like I should retain my copyright on those contributions...I can't think of any solution though.
Steve
Sockpupet accounts. Unless you legaly have to assert your copyright you don't have to admit haveing made them.
Or just do what I did and make 50,000+ edits, most of them on articles found by clicking "random article." In amongst all that rubbish, who in their right mind is going to dig around enough to find out that I edited [[Human animal roleplay (BDSM)]] back on February 22 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_animal_roleplay_%28BDSM%29&diff=3798021&oldid=2488949? Nobody's that anal, so my shameful secret is safe for all eternity. The perfect crime! Hahaha!
On 3/6/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Nobody's that anal,
It appears we may deal with different groups of wikipedians.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/6/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Nobody's that anal,
It appears we may deal with different groups of wikipedians.
You can safely assume that any post of mine that ends with maniacal laughter is meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek. :)
Bryan Derksen wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
You raise an interesting question which has occurred to me before. There are topics I would consider editing on, but I don't really want them to come up in my list of contributions. Yet I feel like I should retain my copyright on those contributions...I can't think of any solution though.
Sockpupet accounts. Unless you legaly have to assert your copyright you don't have to admit haveing made them.
Or just do what I did and make 50,000+ edits, most of them on articles found by clicking "random article." In amongst all that rubbish, who in their right mind is going to dig around enough to find out that I edited [[Human animal roleplay (BDSM)]] back on February 22 2004
Indeed. NP patrol is also a good way to diversify your contributions and/or watchlist. I think [[Furtling]] is probably the strangest page on my watchlist, though [[Teabagging]] and [[Bum darts]] come close.
Or, for plain oddness and obscurity, there are [[Pink Pippos of Portland]] and [[Fleagle Beagle]]. Or the ever-popular vandalism targets [[Anus language]] and [[Tate (god)]].
(I could also list [[Peräsmies]], but it doesn't really belong with the others -- I actually ''do'' know something about the subject myself.)
On 3/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
In a perfect world, we could have perfect anonymity in this matter (actually, we wouldn't /need/ anonymity), but the world is far from perfect. I'm not going to buy into the "this proposal amounts to trolling" argument, except to say this: removing usernames from contributions would be a troll's paradise.
Predicting the future is hard. I wonder how you arrive at that conclusion? How is it possible to troll something that is effectively nothing more than a huge stack of edits? Trolls require opponents and if the opponents are not discernible the primary incentive to troll is not there. There are lots of totally anonymous (as anonymous as you can get on the Internet) communities and the few I have been involved in have not been plagued by trolls.
Of course, no way in hell that Wikipedia will do away with the user account concept. It is just to deeply rooted. But thinking about it can give you some insight on flaws in how Wikipedia currently operates. For example, did you know that in some universities professors are not able to see the students names on exams and papers handed in? Why do you think that is and do you think Wikipedia users are in general better than university professors?
-- mvh Björn
On 3/5/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
In a perfect world, we could have perfect anonymity in this matter (actually, we wouldn't /need/ anonymity), but the world is far from perfect. I'm not going to buy into the "this proposal amounts to trolling" argument, except to say this: removing usernames from contributions would be a troll's paradise.
Predicting the future is hard. I wonder how you arrive at that conclusion? How is it possible to troll something that is effectively nothing more than a huge stack of edits? Trolls require opponents and if the opponents are not discernible the primary incentive to troll is not there. There are lots of totally anonymous (as anonymous as you can get on the Internet) communities and the few I have been involved in have not been plagued by trolls.
You don't need discernible opponents oponets to troll.
Of course, no way in hell that Wikipedia will do away with the user account concept. It is just to deeply rooted. But thinking about it can give you some insight on flaws in how Wikipedia currently operates. For example, did you know that in some universities professors are not able to see the students names on exams and papers handed in? Why do you think that is and do you think Wikipedia users are in general better than university professors?
Because our view of a person will almost always be shaped by what they have done on the wiki. People dislike me because of what I have done on wikipedia. Not because of what I have done in the real world or on other sites.
A university professor will have Baises other than those caused by viewing the exam.
__ geni
On 3/6/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
operates. For example, did you know that in some universities professors are not able to see the students names on exams and papers handed in? Why do you think that is and do you think Wikipedia users are in general better than university professors?
If and when Wikipedia has an article review process, anonymity may be useful. A better analogy for Wikipedia would be collaborating together to write journal articles, which afaik, is never done anonymously.
Steve
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Of course, no way in hell that Wikipedia will do away with the user account concept. It is just to deeply rooted. But thinking about it can give you some insight on flaws in how Wikipedia currently operates. For example, did you know that in some universities professors are not able to see the students names on exams and papers handed in? Why do you think that is and do you think Wikipedia users are in general better than university professors?
When marking exams, it is of paramount importance to be fair to the student who wrote the exam. The quality of the _student_ is the important thing. When compiling an encyclopedia, on the other hand, it is of paramount importance to ensure that the _encyclopedia_ is of good quality. I don't think you can directly compare the two since the goals are so different.