http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey
This is either measurable progress or a complete train wreck, I'm not sure which.
There are a number of divergent views: *That semi-protecting a vast sub-set of articles would be less drastic than using stable versions on them (wtf, over) *That stable versions on BLPs would be a good test case for using it everywhere *That stable versions on BLPs would be a good thing, but should still be opposed as a slippery slope toward using it on all pages (more of a slippery climb actually) *That stable versions should be opposed at any level, with arguments like "disaster waiting to happen" and "I do not have sufficient obscenities in my vocabulary to express..."
I see an emerging consensus that I should go jump in the lake, as my own views should ***hopefully*** be clear enough. I take full credit for hijacking it and I agree entirely with Greg's points. A conscious effort to apply the same standards everywhere would be the best long-term approach, even if it seems a 180° reversal at the moment.
But maybe the flaggedrevs must be presented as a BLP tool in order for the community to accept it. Maybe there's no other chance in hell. Boggling as it is I'm willing to accept this.
So alright, sure, start with the BLPs, cook the perishable food first, but don't stop there. I don't want to see people going apeshit when it is used for the actual intended purposes.
I should apologize for alienating everyone from Long Beach to Shaftesbury trying to get my point across. Probably a pipe dream anyway.
No one knows what it's like to be a dustbin.
—C.W.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Charlotte Webb wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey
This is either measurable progress or a complete train wreck, I'm not sure which.
There are a number of divergent views: *That semi-protecting a vast sub-set of articles would be less drastic than using stable versions on them (wtf, over) *That stable versions on BLPs would be a good test case for using it everywhere *That stable versions on BLPs would be a good thing, but should still be opposed as a slippery slope toward using it on all pages (more of a slippery climb actually) *That stable versions should be opposed at any level, with arguments like "disaster waiting to happen" and "I do not have sufficient obscenities in my vocabulary to express..."
I see an emerging consensus that I should go jump in the lake, as my own views should ***hopefully*** be clear enough. I take full credit for hijacking it and I agree entirely with Greg's points. A conscious effort to apply the same standards everywhere would be the best long-term approach, even if it seems a 180° reversal at the moment.
But maybe the flaggedrevs must be presented as a BLP tool in order for the community to accept it. Maybe there's no other chance in hell. Boggling as it is I'm willing to accept this.
So alright, sure, start with the BLPs, cook the perishable food first, but don't stop there. I don't want to see people going apeshit when it is used for the actual intended purposes.
I should apologize for alienating everyone from Long Beach to Shaftesbury trying to get my point across. Probably a pipe dream anyway.
No one knows what it's like to be a dustbin.
—C.W.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I know what it is like to be in a dustbin.
Hello again, CW. It has been a while since we last spoke...
I do agree with CW in the way that flagrev could be applied here to BLP articles. this is the one area where articles may have a clear and present impact on the lives of people. While I don't like any of the proposed solutions, I agree, something must be done. I am willing to accept flagged revisions in the interim. Perhaps if it goes well on BLP articles, an argument could be made to apply it elsewhere.
Jon-
There is one very clear example of bad thinking here. I cannot understand how anyone thinks flaggedrevs would shut more people out than semi-protection does. Truly bizarre.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:49:48 -0600 From: charlottethewebb@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] flagged revvvs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey
This is either measurable progress or a complete train wreck, I'm not sure which.
There are a number of divergent views: *That semi-protecting a vast sub-set of articles would be less drastic than using stable versions on them (wtf, over) *That stable versions on BLPs would be a good test case for using it everywhere *That stable versions on BLPs would be a good thing, but should still be opposed as a slippery slope toward using it on all pages (more of a slippery climb actually) *That stable versions should be opposed at any level, with arguments like "disaster waiting to happen" and "I do not have sufficient obscenities in my vocabulary to express..."
I see an emerging consensus that I should go jump in the lake, as my own views should ***hopefully*** be clear enough. I take full credit for hijacking it and I agree entirely with Greg's points. A conscious effort to apply the same standards everywhere would be the best long-term approach, even if it seems a 180° reversal at the moment.
But maybe the flaggedrevs must be presented as a BLP tool in order for the community to accept it. Maybe there's no other chance in hell. Boggling as it is I'm willing to accept this.
So alright, sure, start with the BLPs, cook the perishable food first, but don't stop there. I don't want to see people going apeshit when it is used for the actual intended purposes.
I should apologize for alienating everyone from Long Beach to Shaftesbury trying to get my point across. Probably a pipe dream anyway.
No one knows what it's like to be a dustbin.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Get Windows Live Messenger on your Mobile http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000001ukm/direct/01/
The difference is that even autoconfirmed editors do bad things to articles (see Grawp). With flaggedrevs, even if they aren't autoconfirmed, they won't show up if they violate BLP.
-X!
On Dec 22, 2008, at 8:04 AM [Dec 22, 2008 ], Christiano Moreschi wrote:
There is one very clear example of bad thinking here. I cannot understand how anyone thinks flaggedrevs would shut more people out than semi-protection does. Truly bizarre.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:49:48 -0600 From: charlottethewebb@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] flagged revvvs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey
This is either measurable progress or a complete train wreck, I'm not sure which.
There are a number of divergent views: *That semi-protecting a vast sub-set of articles would be less drastic than using stable versions on them (wtf, over) *That stable versions on BLPs would be a good test case for using it everywhere *That stable versions on BLPs would be a good thing, but should still be opposed as a slippery slope toward using it on all pages (more of a slippery climb actually) *That stable versions should be opposed at any level, with arguments like "disaster waiting to happen" and "I do not have sufficient obscenities in my vocabulary to express..."
I see an emerging consensus that I should go jump in the lake, as my own views should ***hopefully*** be clear enough. I take full credit for hijacking it and I agree entirely with Greg's points. A conscious effort to apply the same standards everywhere would be the best long-term approach, even if it seems a 180° reversal at the moment.
But maybe the flaggedrevs must be presented as a BLP tool in order for the community to accept it. Maybe there's no other chance in hell. Boggling as it is I'm willing to accept this.
So alright, sure, start with the BLPs, cook the perishable food first, but don't stop there. I don't want to see people going apeshit when it is used for the actual intended purposes.
I should apologize for alienating everyone from Long Beach to Shaftesbury trying to get my point across. Probably a pipe dream anyway.
No one knows what it's like to be a dustbin.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Get Windows Live Messenger on your Mobile http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000001ukm/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/22 Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk:
There is one very clear example of bad thinking here. I cannot understand how anyone thinks flaggedrevs would shut more people out than semi-protection does. Truly bizarre.
I can only assume there's some widespread misconceptions over quite what flagged-revs does - perhaps figuring out a way to specifically target these would be a good way to get more people on board.
A set of demonstration pages, showing what flaggedrevs would show compared to what sprotection would, perhaps?
I can only assume there's some widespread misconceptions over quite what flagged-revs does - perhaps figuring out a way to specifically target these would be a good way to get more people on board.
A set of demonstration pages, showing what flaggedrevs would show compared to what sprotection would, perhaps?
What's needed is a really clear explanation which does not use arcane words such as "flagging" or "sighting".
—Thomas Larsen