http://news.com.com/Growing+pains+for+Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html?tag...
"Thus, to avoid future problems, Wales plans to bar anonymous users from creating new articles; only registered members will be able to do so. That change will go into effect Monday, he said, adding that anonymous users will still be able to edit existing entries."
Why were Wikipedians the last to know about this? I only saw some discussion on the mailing list about this, but nothing final. Why do we have to learn of this from the media instead of straight from Jimbo? This is really disturbing.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
John Lee wrote:
http://news.com.com/Growing+pains+for+Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html?tag...
"Thus, to avoid future problems, Wales plans to bar anonymous users from creating new articles; only registered members will be able to do so. That change will go into effect Monday, he said, adding that anonymous users will still be able to edit existing entries."
Why were Wikipedians the last to know about this? I only saw some discussion on the mailing list about this, but nothing final. Why do we have to learn of this from the media instead of straight from Jimbo? This is really disturbing.
It's like Celera Genomics and the Human Genome Project. It's policy by press release!
Chris
John Lee wrote:
Why were Wikipedians the last to know about this? I only saw some discussion on the mailing list about this, but nothing final. Why do we have to learn of this from the media instead of straight from Jimbo? This is really disturbing.
I told the reporter "hopefully by Monday" and only learned from Brion this morning that the feature is ready.
Sorry about the confusion.
--Jimbo
On 12/5/05, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
http://news.com.com/Growing+pains+for+Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html?tag...
Why were Wikipedians the last to know about this? I only saw some discussion on the mailing list about this, but nothing final. Why do we have to learn of this from the media instead of straight from Jimbo? This is really disturbing.
Not only disturbing, but disappointing.
I guess the only silver lining is that it helps confirm yet another cynical prediction I and others have made in the past.
Four years ago, Jimbo wrote "Wikipedia should remain permanently open to everyone who is attempting to make a legitimate contribution." [1]
I guess by "permanently" he meant "for a few more years" and by "open" he meant "restricted".
It's much easier to take away openness than it is to restore it.
I dare Jimbo to reverse his decision.
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_How_to_Destroy_Wikipedia
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
It's much easier to take away openness than it is to restore it.
I dare Jimbo to reverse his decision.
Since Jimbo said it was an experiment, "reversing" this condition should not be so daring.
"Today, as an experiment, we will be turning off new pages creation for anonymous users in the English Wikipedia."
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/5/05, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
http://news.com.com/Growing+pains+for+Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html?tag...
Why were Wikipedians the last to know about this? I only saw some discussion on the mailing list about this, but nothing final. Why do we have to learn of this from the media instead of straight from Jimbo? This is really disturbing.
Not only disturbing, but disappointing.
I guess the only silver lining is that it helps confirm yet another cynical prediction I and others have made in the past.
Four years ago, Jimbo wrote "Wikipedia should remain permanently open to everyone who is attempting to make a legitimate contribution." [1]
I guess by "permanently" he meant "for a few more years" and by "open" he meant "restricted".
Could you clarify how anyone is prevented from making a contribution by this experiment. An anon editor simply creates an account and creates the page.
First of all, I don't think that Jimbo ever expected that Wikipedia would become this popular and widespread. The quote you use was made FOUR YEARS ago. A lot has changed in four years' time.
Now, I don't profess to know why we were the last to find out... that could be for any number of reasons. However, I think that this experiment is going to yield interesting results, and for that reason I endorse it. (Not as if anything needs my endorsing since I'm just one editor among hundreds)
Let's see what happens and see what comes next.
--Martin Osterman
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/05, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
http://news.com.com/Growing+pains+for+Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html?tag...
Why were Wikipedians the last to know about this? I only saw some discussion on the mailing list about this, but nothing final. Why do we have to learn of this from the media instead of straight from Jimbo? This is really disturbing.
Not only disturbing, but disappointing.
I guess the only silver lining is that it helps confirm yet another cynical prediction I and others have made in the past.
Four years ago, Jimbo wrote "Wikipedia should remain permanently open to everyone who is attempting to make a legitimate contribution." [1]
I guess by "permanently" he meant "for a few more years" and by "open" he meant "restricted".
It's much easier to take away openness than it is to restore it.
I dare Jimbo to reverse his decision.
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_How_to_Destroy_Wikipedia _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- *Martin Osterman*
Student Manager, Ball State Weather Station (http://www.bsu.edu/weather) Contributor, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org) Amateur Photographer (http://martino84.deviantart.com)
On 12/6/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/5/05, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
http://news.com.com/Growing+pains+for+Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html?tag...
Why were Wikipedians the last to know about this? I only saw some discussion on the mailing list about this, but nothing final. Why do we have to learn of this from the media instead of straight from Jimbo? This is really disturbing.
Not only disturbing, but disappointing.
I guess the only silver lining is that it helps confirm yet another cynical prediction I and others have made in the past.
Four years ago, Jimbo wrote "Wikipedia should remain permanently open to everyone who is attempting to make a legitimate contribution." [1]
I guess by "permanently" he meant "for a few more years" and by "open" he meant "restricted".
Could you clarify how anyone is prevented from making a contribution by this experiment. An anon editor simply creates an account and creates the page.
Exactly. As an added bonus, a registered user actually has *more* privacy than an anonymous user since everyone can't see their IP address.
Carbonite
On 12/6/05, Martin Osterman stonewallgrant@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, I don't think that Jimbo ever expected that Wikipedia would become this popular and widespread. The quote you use was made FOUR YEARS ago. A lot has changed in four years' time.
I know. But human nature hasn't changed much in that time.
And both Jimbo and I expected Wikipedia would become this popular and widespread.
Now, I don't profess to know why we were the last to find out... that could be for any number of reasons. However, I think that this experiment is going to yield interesting results, and for that reason I endorse it. (Not as if anything needs my endorsing since I'm just one editor among hundreds)
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment. It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong?
Perhaps my newness to the encyclopedia (member as of March, 2005) has left me feeling naieve. However, I'm inclined to give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt. He says it's an experiment, so I'm inclined to go with that.
On what grounds do you suggest that this is a "permanent policy change" in the guise of an experiment?
--Martin
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/05, Martin Osterman stonewallgrant@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, I don't think that Jimbo ever expected that Wikipedia
would
become this popular and widespread. The quote you use was made FOUR
YEARS
ago. A lot has changed in four years' time.
I know. But human nature hasn't changed much in that time.
And both Jimbo and I expected Wikipedia would become this popular and widespread.
Now, I don't profess to know why we were the last to find out... that
could
be for any number of reasons. However, I think that this experiment is going to yield interesting results, and for that reason I endorse
it. (Not
as if anything needs my endorsing since I'm just one editor among
hundreds)
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment. It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- *Martin Osterman*
Student Manager, Ball State Weather Station (http://www.bsu.edu/weather) Contributor, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org) Amateur Photographer (http://martino84.deviantart.com)
Look, you say that it can't be seen as an experiment because there arn't any start and end dates, and so forth, but does not mean it isn't an experience. You are right, it very well MAY be a permanent policy change if it works out fine... if it doesn't (many people complain, it doesn't really reduce bad entries, wikipedia growth is severely stuntet, etc) we will just change it back. We could sit around and discuss if this is a good idea forever, but the only way we will ever know for sure is to actually try it out.
Look, this in no way (except in the very most theoretical wiki-fundamental way) limits the openness of wikipedia, and it very well might increase the overall quality, so why not try it for awhile?
Remember, we are here to write an encyclopedia first and foremost. We are a grand social experment ofcourse, but not primarily (or however that qoute went).
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/05, Martin Osterman stonewallgrant@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, I don't think that Jimbo ever expected that Wikipedia would become this popular and widespread. The quote you use was made FOUR YEARS ago. A lot has changed in four years' time.
I know. But human nature hasn't changed much in that time.
And both Jimbo and I expected Wikipedia would become this popular and widespread.
Now, I don't profess to know why we were the last to find out... that could be for any number of reasons. However, I think that this experiment is going to yield interesting results, and for that reason I endorse it. (Not as if anything needs my endorsing since I'm just one editor among hundreds)
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment. It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Cunctator wrote:
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment.
It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
My guess is that it's an experiment that will turn into a permanent policy change if it turns out to be useful.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong?
About this being not an experiment, or about it being permanent?
It will stay if it turns out to be a Good Thing (tm). As most people expect it to be good, most peolpe will expect it to stay.
So, you're likely wrong about the "experiment" part, but probably not about the "permanent"part :-)
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
My guess is that it's an experiment that will turn into a permanent policy change if it turns out to be useful.
But there does not appear to be any actual criteria under which it can be judged to fail. The only way it will be rescinded, basically, is if Jimbo changes his mind about it being a good idea, because there's no way he can be proven wrong about it being a good idea. No one has even informally defined what it would mean for it to be "successful", much less suggested how to measure that.
One possible criterion: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia (counting new page creation and edits to existing pages) decreases.
Another one: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia not caught within [x] hours (again counting both) decreases.
Is anyone prepared to measure either of these, or some other useful statistic?
-Mark
On 12/6/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
My guess is that it's an experiment that will turn into a permanent policy change if it turns out to be useful.
But there does not appear to be any actual criteria under which it can be judged to fail. The only way it will be rescinded, basically, is if Jimbo changes his mind about it being a good idea, because there's no way he can be proven wrong about it being a good idea. No one has even informally defined what it would mean for it to be "successful", much less suggested how to measure that.
I'd say wait a week or two, and then let Jimbo present us with the evidence showing that it was successful. If you'd like, you can present us with some evidence showing that it wasn't successful.
One possible criterion: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia (counting new page creation and edits to existing pages) decreases.
Another one: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia not caught within [x] hours (again counting both) decreases.
It would be far too easy for people to game the system if these criteria were presented ahead of time. Maybe you should talk to Jimmy privately and agree upon some metrics. Don't tell us what they are until the experiment is over, though.
Is anyone prepared to measure either of these, or some other useful statistic?
-Mark
I'm not, because I don't think the decision as to whether or not users that aren't logged in can create new articles is that big of a deal (and to the extent it is it's a culture change whose effect won't become obvious for years). But you and Jimmy might be.
Anthony
Just off the top of my head, I can think of three good things that would make it fail.
1. Many people (anons and regular users alike) protests 2. It is ineffective, that is, New Page patrollers see just as much crap article-creations as before (and what would be the point of restricting anons then). 3. Article growth severly stunted
(also, minor point, but if there can be, as you say, no way to tell that it has failed, wouldn't that mean it's a roaring success?)
Look, lets just try this out for awhile. A thing like this could be enormously effecting at reducing bad new articles/good new articles ratio, or it might make no difference what so ever. The only way to find out is to actually do it.
Oskar Sigvardsson On 12/6/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
My guess is that it's an experiment that will turn into a permanent policy change if it turns out to be useful.
But there does not appear to be any actual criteria under which it can be judged to fail. The only way it will be rescinded, basically, is if Jimbo changes his mind about it being a good idea, because there's no way he can be proven wrong about it being a good idea. No one has even informally defined what it would mean for it to be "successful", much less suggested how to measure that.
One possible criterion: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia (counting new page creation and edits to existing pages) decreases.
Another one: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia not caught within [x] hours (again counting both) decreases.
Is anyone prepared to measure either of these, or some other useful statistic?
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's good because of damage control. It's not like he's doing this to spite *us*, in fact, it's the exact opposite; he's helping our community not look like fools. After something big and stupid like this happens, he has to make some kind of gesture, at least, even if it is completely wrong, and doesn't really do anything, just until the heat is off. We got caught with our pants down, and Jimbo is doing us all a favor by not looking like fools. Why not realize that this isn't about the real issue, and is more about the PR?
On 12/6/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment.
It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
My guess is that it's an experiment that will turn into a permanent policy change if it turns out to be useful.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong?
About this being not an experiment, or about it being permanent?
It will stay if it turns out to be a Good Thing (tm). As most people expect it to be good, most peolpe will expect it to stay.
So, you're likely wrong about the "experiment" part, but probably not about the "permanent"part :-)
Actually, I'd argue the opposite if I were to be didactic, because nothing is *truly* permanent. Though maybe Wikipedia will be the seed of a Teilhardian noosphere that will expand throughout the universe until its heat death.
Jimbo claiming it's an experiment does not make it an experiment. Laying out metrics for success and failure would draw closer.
The problems caused by increasing restrictions and decreasing openness are almost always very hard to see; it's very difficult to quantify lost opportunities. Especially if there isn't an effort made beforehand to define a proper metric, which is extraordinarily difficult for something like Wikipedia.
If Jimbo were honest about it being an experiment, I'd recommend that he do something like have the anon article creation ability be turned on and off for semi-random, unannounced periods of time and see what happens as a consequence.
The Cunctator wrote:
Four years ago, Jimbo wrote "Wikipedia should remain permanently open to everyone who is attempting to make a legitimate contribution." [1]
I guess by "permanently" he meant "for a few more years" and by "open" he meant "restricted".
That's rather a bit over the top, isn't it? Wikipedia is still completely open to everyone who is attempting to make a legitimate contribution.
--Jimbo
Martin Osterman wrote:
Now, I don't profess to know why we were the last to find out... that could be for any number of reasons. However, I think that this experiment is going to yield interesting results, and for that reason I endorse it. (Not as if anything needs my endorsing since I'm just one editor among hundreds)
Let me put it this way: the news report which "announced" the change would happen on Monday appeared on the web before I even knew that the change would be possible on Monday.
Reporters were asking me how the site works, leading to discussions of various small tweaks that might help make new pages patrolling easier, and I was asked when we might see some changes. I said something like "probably by Monday". The reporter took this to mean that this _particular_ change would be implemented on _Monday_, and ran it as an announcement.
It turned out, in a completely unrelated sequence of events, I had asked how hard such a change would be to implement technically and he reported back to me on Monday morning that it was ready.
I think we will be making a lot more changes, doing a lot more experiments, and that we should do them on an experimental basis (try it, see what happens, go back if it doesn't work, etc.) rather than try to guess everything from an "a priori" basis.
--Jimbo
The Cunctator wrote:
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment. It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong?
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Look, you say that it can't be seen as an experiment because there arn't any start and end dates, and so forth, but does not mean it isn't an experience. You are right, it very well MAY be a permanent policy change if it works out fine... if it doesn't (many people complain, it doesn't really reduce bad entries, wikipedia growth is severely stuntet, etc) we will just change it back. We could sit around and discuss if this is a good idea forever, but the only way we will ever know for sure is to actually try it out.
Exactly. Far too often we have endless a priori debates about certain things, debates which lead nowhere because we have no evidence. A better approach is to be flexible and try things and see what happens, and proceed thoughtfully based on lessons learned.
--Jimbo
Delirium wrote:
No one has even informally defined what it would mean for it to be "successful", much less suggested how to measure that.
One possible criterion: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia (counting new page creation and edits to existing pages) decreases.
Another one: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia not caught within [x] hours (again counting both) decreases.
Is anyone prepared to measure either of these, or some other useful statistic?
Those two are, quite obviously, difficult to measure. Indeed, it is very hard to come up with appropriate simple metrics, and so I think what we need to do instead is take a holistic approach. We have a rough idea of the tradeoffs here, and we can see if things are working out the way we expect.
" * As a new page patroller, the new system does seem to be working. It's pleasant to be spending more time fixing useful articles, and less time getting rid of newbie tests. Kappa 15:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)"
That's a valid voice. But only one. What problems are we seeing?
Netoholic gathered some first-pass statistics: Before After New pages 2050 1622 Article deletions 1309 929 New users 3241 6370 (!)
The increase in number of users seems out of proportion; he theorizes that this has more to do with our massive press coverage than anything else. It'll like some more time to really assess this.
--Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The increase in number of users seems out of proportion; he theorizes that this has more to do with our massive press coverage than anything else. It'll like some more time to really assess this.
--Jimbo
Anecdotal evidence from an avid RC patroller:
I get the feeling that more people are registering accounts for the purposes of creating bad articles, that previously would have been created as anonymous users. This is somewhat annoying, since it means that when I'm running CDVF I have to look at every new page created, rather than just those created by anons. So there's a semi-serious drawback for RC patrollers.
However, I also get the feeling that far fewer bad articles are being created, especially those of the "adshfsfhdsfhahdf" variety. We still get a lot of vanity and spam but those people would have been creating their articles either way. Instead, nonsense vandals -- since they can't create their own articles to vandalize -- are blanking other more, which is far easier to catch and revert. So overall I (tentatively) think this is making life much easier for RC patrol.
Ryan
Jimbo,
As long as you keep us posted on changes, be they intended or implemented, I (and probably most others) won't have any problems whatsoever. My business is to help make the encyclopedia better through the knowledge I have; knowing what changes are going to be made helps me in my task.
Take care,
Martin Osterman
PS -- Don't you just love the media? LOL I've seen them do this a few times before...
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 7:54 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Anons banned from creating articles
Martin Osterman wrote:
Now, I don't profess to know why we were the last to find out... that
could
be for any number of reasons. However, I think that this experiment is going to yield interesting results, and for that reason I endorse it.
(Not
as if anything needs my endorsing since I'm just one editor among
hundreds)
Let me put it this way: the news report which "announced" the change would happen on Monday appeared on the web before I even knew that the change would be possible on Monday.
Reporters were asking me how the site works, leading to discussions of various small tweaks that might help make new pages patrolling easier, and I was asked when we might see some changes. I said something like "probably by Monday". The reporter took this to mean that this _particular_ change would be implemented on _Monday_, and ran it as an announcement.
It turned out, in a completely unrelated sequence of events, I had asked how hard such a change would be to implement technically and he reported back to me on Monday morning that it was ready.
I think we will be making a lot more changes, doing a lot more experiments, and that we should do them on an experimental basis (try it, see what happens, go back if it doesn't work, etc.) rather than try to guess everything from an "a priori" basis.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Four years ago, Jimbo wrote "Wikipedia should remain permanently open to everyone who is attempting to make a legitimate contribution." [1]
I guess by "permanently" he meant "for a few more years" and by "open" he meant "restricted".
That's rather a bit over the top, isn't it? Wikipedia is still completely open to everyone who is attempting to make a legitimate contribution.
--Jimbo
This is an invitation to test :-)
ant
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Exactly. Far too often we have endless a priori debates about certain things, debates which lead nowhere because we have no evidence. A better approach is to be flexible and try things and see what happens, and proceed thoughtfully based on lessons learned.
Yes, but it would be nice if those experiments were driven by Wikipedia's needs per se, not by PR. Now this may have some positive impact on Wikipedia (though I personally doubt it), but the timing sure looks suspiciously like it was done for PR purposes, so we can say in response to the current media frenzy of the week that we're "doing something".
-Mark
On 12/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment. It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong?
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
Okay, I'm trying really hard not to be very annoyed. As the person running the "experiment" Jimbo is not supposed to make prejudgements on the results while we're collecting data. But then, if we were all willing to admit it's not an experiment, I'd be much happier.
As for point (b), Jimbo also wrote:
That's rather a bit over the top, isn't it? Wikipedia is still completely open to everyone who is attempting to make a legitimate contribution.
"Completely open" means without *any* restrictions. Compelled registration is not "completely open". All of those newspaper websites that force you to register (for free) to read their articles are not "completely open".
Wikipedia has not been completely open for a long time -- the ability to move and delete articles has been pretty much always restricted.
I'm not saying this is necessarily bad (though I do have my opinions about it) but that it is untrue that Wikipedia is completely open.
Let me make a practical example: say I, a longtime user, want to create a new article but I'm not at my home computer. To do so I have to log in again; I have absolutely no memory of my password. Before Monday, I could still easily create the password. Now I have to have the system send me a new password, open up my email, enter the new password, and remember to change my settings at home with the new password. These are new hurdles that I may not want to go through, so no new article.
On 12/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Those two are, quite obviously, difficult to measure. Indeed, it is very hard to come up with appropriate simple metrics, and so I think what we need to do instead is take a holistic approach. We have a rough idea of the tradeoffs here, and we can see if things are working out the way we expect.
" * As a new page patroller, the new system does seem to be working. It's pleasant to be spending more time fixing useful articles, and less time getting rid of newbie tests. Kappa 15:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)"
That's a valid voice. But only one. What problems are we seeing?
Netoholic gathered some first-pass statistics: Before After New pages 2050 1622 Article deletions 1309 929 New users 3241 6370 (!)
The increase in number of users seems out of proportion; he theorizes that this has more to do with our massive press coverage than anything else. It'll like some more time to really assess this.
What's the time period here? We should continue this listing here.
It looks like this change may increase the percentage of "dead" accounts.
Other statistics of interest would be the percentage of IP to registered edits.
On 12/6/05, Martin Osterman stonewallgrant@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps my newness to the encyclopedia (member as of March, 2005) has left me feeling naieve. However, I'm inclined to give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt. He says it's an experiment, so I'm inclined to go with that.
On what grounds do you suggest that this is a "permanent policy change" in the guise of an experiment?
Primarily because experiments are better designed. I think part of the problem is that what I'm thinking of as an experiment is different from how Jimbo's using the word. He's probably just using it to mean "I'm making a change and I'm not 100% certain of what will happen, even though I'm pretty sure it'll be good."
Whereas I expect "experiment" to mean "I'm making a change and I don't know what will happen, but I've put in place mechanisms to measure as many of its effects as I can, so that I will be able to determine whether it is good or not."
My suggestion is also based in a little appreciation for the immutability of human nature, which suggests that all institutions institutionalize, that is, tend towards restrictiveness, hierarchy, and centralization of control. Steps in that direction are rarely reversed. This is a small step, but its direction is clear.
Anthere wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Four years ago, Jimbo wrote "Wikipedia should remain permanently open to everyone who is attempting to make a legitimate contribution." [1]
I guess by "permanently" he meant "for a few more years" and by "open" he meant "restricted".
That's rather a bit over the top, isn't it? Wikipedia is still completely open to everyone who is attempting to make a legitimate contribution.
--Jimbo
This is an invitation to test :-)
ant
one of my tests was pretty conclusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_succession was created in less than an hour and the history (though completely elliptique for anyone outside the community) is at least refering to WP:AFC http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secondary_succession&action=hi...
Congrats Leithp :-)
The Cunctator wrote:
I'm not saying this is necessarily bad (though I do have my opinions about it) but that it is untrue that Wikipedia is completely open.
Let me make a practical example: say I, a longtime user, want to create a new article but I'm not at my home computer. To do so I have to log in again; I have absolutely no memory of my password. Before Monday, I could still easily create the password. Now I have to have the system send me a new password, open up my email, enter the new password, and remember to change my settings at home with the new password. These are new hurdles that I may not want to go through, so no new article.
So you're saying that if someone can create a new article, but chooses not to, Wikipedia is not completely open? That's a very tight definition of open that I'm not sure exists in actuality.
Perhaps if you're a scientist the experiments are better designed. I, for one, often create experiments simply to see if something will work better than it did before. I believe that is the definition being used here by Jimbo. Moreover, most people seem to hold this definition of the word.
Finally, despite all the philosophy regarding human nature, I will continue to apply good faith in this situation until such time as I feel that it can not be used. Yes, we as humans tend towards centralization of control and of all things for the purposes of simplification; I do not see that as being the root cause of this issue, though. There was a problem, and it demonstrated an inherent problem in the system. To solve that problem steps have been taken in an attempt to see if the problem will be corrected.
--Martin
On 12/7/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/05, Martin Osterman stonewallgrant@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps my newness to the encyclopedia (member as of March, 2005) has
left
me feeling naieve. However, I'm inclined to give Jimbo the benefit of
the
doubt. He says it's an experiment, so I'm inclined to go with that.
On what grounds do you suggest that this is a "permanent policy change"
in
the guise of an experiment?
Primarily because experiments are better designed. I think part of the problem is that what I'm thinking of as an experiment is different from how Jimbo's using the word. He's probably just using it to mean "I'm making a change and I'm not 100% certain of what will happen, even though I'm pretty sure it'll be good."
Whereas I expect "experiment" to mean "I'm making a change and I don't know what will happen, but I've put in place mechanisms to measure as many of its effects as I can, so that I will be able to determine whether it is good or not."
My suggestion is also based in a little appreciation for the immutability of human nature, which suggests that all institutions institutionalize, that is, tend towards restrictiveness, hierarchy, and centralization of control. Steps in that direction are rarely reversed. This is a small step, but its direction is clear. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/7/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/05, Martin Osterman stonewallgrant@gmail.com wrote:
On what grounds do you suggest that this is a "permanent policy change" in the guise of an experiment?
Primarily because experiments are better designed. I think part of the problem is that what I'm thinking of as an experiment is different from how Jimbo's using the word. He's probably just using it to mean "I'm making a change and I'm not 100% certain of what will happen, even though I'm pretty sure it'll be good."
I took it to mean "I'm making a change and I'm not 100% certain of what will happen, but after a few weeks I'll re-evaluate whether or not it was a good idea."
My suggestion is also based in a little appreciation for the immutability of human nature, which suggests that all institutions institutionalize, that is, tend towards restrictiveness, hierarchy, and centralization of control. Steps in that direction are rarely reversed. This is a small step, but its direction is clear.
Well, yeah, institutions tend to do this, because this tends to be a good thing. Stuff tends to not get done otherwise.
Of course, Wikipedia is released under the GFDL, so if those that control the institutions make the wrong decisions, they will find that they are soon not in control of very much of anything.
Anthony
The Cunctator wrote:
Let me make a practical example: say I, a longtime user, want to create a new article but I'm not at my home computer. To do so I have to log in again; I have absolutely no memory of my password. Before Monday, I could still easily create the password. Now I have to have the system send me a new password, open up my email, enter the new password, and remember to change my settings at home with the new password. These are new hurdles that I may not want to go through, so no new article.
Ah, now I see: This "experiment" is, truth be told, an Alzheimer prevention program to make you remember your password! :-)
Seriously: While a scientific experiment is open in its outcome, it is in some way designed along an expectation, namely that your working hypothesis is correct. Only if the experiment shows that this hypothesis is false, you will consider altering or abandoning it.
I think that's the case here as well. While the outcome is open, the expectation is that it will help wikipedia and, thus, stay. If it turns out that, *unexpectedly*, it does harm to wikipedia, I'm sure Jimbo will be the first to get rid of it.
And for the situation you mentioned: Why not create a user account and write, on the user page, "This is User:XYZ who forgot his password"? That way, the new article can still be credited to you (through the user page). If you, however, would create a new article as an IP, it would not be credited to you.
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
Ah, now I see: This "experiment" is, truth be told, an Alzheimer prevention program to make you remember your password! :-)
Seriously: While a scientific experiment is open in its outcome, it is in some way designed along an expectation, namely that your working hypothesis is correct. Only if the experiment shows that this hypothesis is false, you will consider altering or abandoning it.
At least in the science I'm familiar with, you might personally think that your hypothesis is correct (or else you would have hypothesized something else), but the *experiment* is supposed to be designed from the point of view of a skeptic who believes it to be false.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
Ah, now I see: This "experiment" is, truth be told, an Alzheimer prevention program to make you remember your password! :-)
Seriously: While a scientific experiment is open in its outcome, it is in some way designed along an expectation, namely that your working hypothesis is correct. Only if the experiment shows that this hypothesis is false, you will consider altering or abandoning it.
At least in the science I'm familiar with, you might personally think that your hypothesis is correct (or else you would have hypothesized something else), but the *experiment* is supposed to be designed from the point of view of a skeptic who believes it to be false.
Technically, we'd have to run a second wikipedia, mirrored at the point where anaon article creation was disallowed on *one* of them, as a "negative control" :-)
Since practical reasons prevent us from doing that, we'll have to compare statistics to the last few month. We should also take opinions (yes!) from the "new pages patrol" people into acount, wether the creation of junk pages has dropped noticably.
Ultimately, to see if reality matches your hypothesis, you'll have to apply the conditions of that hypothesis to reality and see if it matches the expected outcome. That's what we are doing. If the results do not match our expectations, thus proving our theory wrong, we'll take the changes back; I have no doubt about this.
Magnus
(yes, I know the scientific hypothesis analogy is a little flawed...)
--- Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Since practical reasons prevent us from doing that, we'll have to compare statistics to the last few month. We should also take opinions (yes!) from the "new pages patrol" people into acount, wether the creation of junk pages has dropped noticably.
Ultimately, to see if reality matches your hypothesis, you'll have to apply the conditions of that hypothesis to reality and see if it matches the expected outcome. That's what we are doing. If the results do not match our expectations, thus proving our theory wrong, we'll take the changes back; I have no doubt about this.
We also have to measure whether or not the problem has just shifted from anons to new users (really, anons whoÂ’s only motivation to create an account was being prevented from creating a new page). If that is the case, then we may need to extend the experiment to newly created user accounts as well.
-- mav
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/6/05, Martin Osterman stonewallgrant@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps my newness to the encyclopedia (member as of March, 2005) has left me feeling naieve. However, I'm inclined to give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt. He says it's an experiment, so I'm inclined to go with that.
On what grounds do you suggest that this is a "permanent policy change" in the guise of an experiment?
Primarily because experiments are better designed. I think part of the problem is that what I'm thinking of as an experiment is different from how Jimbo's using the word. He's probably just using it to mean "I'm making a change and I'm not 100% certain of what will happen, even though I'm pretty sure it'll be good."
There's a difference between "experiment" and "scientific experiment". The former is appropriate for speaking of "youthful experimentation" for instance, which is rarely pursued in a properly controlled way. :-)
Tightening up of WP openness and process is very much akin to what has happened to the Internet as a whole, in response to systematic assaults on people's computers. It wasn't that long ago that a number of idealists routinely made their passwords and other access info public, in the name of openness (I personally logged in as RMS a couple times, strictly for legitimate reasons! :-) ) Nowadays machines will get pwned within minutes - a sad statistic on the number of evildoers running rampant in the world.
Stan
On 12/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment. It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong?
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is already 62 kb long.
-- geni
Where are the results of that experiment discribed?
Heinz
Stan Shebs schrieb:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/6/05, Martin Osterman stonewallgrant@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps my newness to the encyclopedia (member as of March, 2005) has left me feeling naieve. However, I'm inclined to give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt. He says it's an experiment, so I'm inclined to go with that.
On what grounds do you suggest that this is a "permanent policy change" in the guise of an experiment?
Primarily because experiments are better designed. I think part of the problem is that what I'm thinking of as an experiment is different from how Jimbo's using the word. He's probably just using it to mean "I'm making a change and I'm not 100% certain of what will happen, even though I'm pretty sure it'll be good."
There's a difference between "experiment" and "scientific experiment". The former is appropriate for speaking of "youthful experimentation" for instance, which is rarely pursued in a properly controlled way. :-)
Tightening up of WP openness and process is very much akin to what has happened to the Internet as a whole, in response to systematic assaults on people's computers. It wasn't that long ago that a number of idealists routinely made their passwords and other access info public, in the name of openness (I personally logged in as RMS a couple times, strictly for legitimate reasons! :-) ) Nowadays machines will get pwned within minutes - a sad statistic on the number of evildoers running rampant in the world.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy Wales schrieb:
The Cunctator wrote:
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment. It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong?
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Where can the results of this experiment been read?
Heinz
On 12/7/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is already 62 kb long.
I have a strong suspicion ;-) that lots of the articles asked on that page have been asked by wikipedians like you and me... "experimenting" :-)
Delphine -- ~notafish
The Cunctator wrote:
My suggestion is also based in a little appreciation for the immutability of human nature, which suggests that all institutions institutionalize, that is, tend towards restrictiveness, hierarchy, and centralization of control. Steps in that direction are rarely reversed. This is a small step, but its direction is clear.
and on another message he wrote
To make a suggestion of a real experiment, try getting rid of ArticlesForDeletion.
I wonder if he intended some kind of connection between the two. ;-)
Ec
On 12/7/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
We also have to measure whether or not the problem has just shifted from anons to new users (really, anons who's only motivation to create an account was being prevented from creating a new page). If that is the case, then we may need to extend the experiment to newly created user accounts as well.
-- mav
And maybe the problem will shift from new articles to edits of existing articles...in which case we may need to extend the restriction to making edits as well?
--- Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
And maybe the problem will shift from new articles to edits of existing articles...in which case we may need to extend the restriction to making edits as well?
This is not a slippery slope. We already don't allow newly-registered users to move pages. So there is a ledge. As I said before: We should only lock things down slowly and only when not doing so will cause more harm than good.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 12/7/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
And maybe the problem will shift from new articles to edits of existing articles...in which case we may need to extend the restriction to making edits as well?
This is not a slippery slope. We already don't allow newly-registered users to move pages. So there is a ledge. As I said before: We should only lock things down slowly and only when not doing so will cause more harm than good.
-- mav
We already don't allow users who use anonomous proxies (even if they are logged in, in fact even if they are admins) to make edits, so there's "a ledge" there too.
Of course we should only lock things down slowly and only when not doing so will cause more harm than good. Not allowing people to create new pages unless they've already had an account for a while *would* (in my opinion) cause more harm than good. There is, quite frankly, no experiment that I can foresee be performed that would convince me otherwise, because the harm would likely take place over a long time period.
Anthony
On 12/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment. It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong?
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo
Still want to make this bet?
Anthony
On 8/31/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment. It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong?
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo
Still want to make this bet?
Anthony
I doubt he does. I'm pretty sure he already said that he's not so enamoured of it now. It'd fit, since banning anons from creating articles is a "hard" restriction, and Jimbo has said he prefers "soft" restrictions, like semi-protection is supposed to be.
~maru
On 8/31/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/31/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment. It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong?
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo
Still want to make this bet?
Anthony
I doubt he does. I'm pretty sure he already said that he's not so enamoured of it now. It'd fit, since banning anons from creating articles is a "hard" restriction, and Jimbo has said he prefers "soft" restrictions, like semi-protection is supposed to be.
Yeah, he said it doesn't seem to be working, and it's not open. So when is this policy change going to be reverted?
On 8/31/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/31/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/31/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
What annoys me particularly is pretending that this is an experiment. It's not. It's a permanent policy change.
Who's willing to bet that I'm wrong?
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo
Still want to make this bet?
Anthony
I doubt he does. I'm pretty sure he already said that he's not so enamoured of it now. It'd fit, since banning anons from creating articles is a "hard" restriction, and Jimbo has said he prefers "soft" restrictions, like semi-protection is supposed to be.
Yeah, he said it doesn't seem to be working, and it's not open. So when is this policy change going to be reverted?
A good question. There seems to be a slight majority in favor of repealing that change (if I may be permitted to make a totally unscientific and biased estimate) on this list.
That said, I think most are either waiting for the year (and more importantly, [[Eternal September|September]]) to end, to turn over a fresh lear; or they are waiting for the long promised statistical analyses.
~maru
(Just a sort of followup here) Our very own AaronSw has been writing some articles on his blog when he's not busy running for the Board. I found the second of them quite interesting since it seems to have some direct ramifications for our discussion of blocking article creation by anons.
"Who Writes Wikipedia?" ( http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia )
"But, he [Jimmy] insisted, the truth was rather different: Wikipedia was actually written by "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" where "I know all of them and they all know each other". Really, "it's much like any traditional organization."" .... "Wales presents these claims as comforting. Don't worry, he tells the world, Wikipedia isn't as shocking as you think. In fact, it's just like any other project: a small group of colleagues working together toward a common goal. But if you think about it, Wales's view of things is actually much more shocking: around a thousand people wrote the world's largest encyclopedia in four years for free? Could this really be true?"" ..... "Wales seems to think that the vast majority of users are just doing the first two (vandalizing or contributing small fixes) while the core group of Wikipedians writes the actual bulk of the article. But that's not at all what I found. Almost every time I saw a substantive edit, I found the user who had contributed it was not an active user of the site. They generally had made less than 50 edits (typically around 10), usually on related pages. Most never even bothered to create an account." ..... "I don't have the resources to run this calculation across all of Wikipedia (there are over 60 billion edits!), but I ran it on several more randomly-selected articles and the results were much the same. For example, the largest portion of the Anaconda article was written by a user who only made 2 edits to it (and only 100 on the entire site). By contrast, the largest number of edits were made by a user who appears to have contributed no text to the final article (the edits were all deleting things and moving things around). When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site -- the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it's the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content." .... Aaron essentially concludes with: "Wales is right about one thing, though. This fact does have enormous policy implications. If Wikipedia is written by occasional contributors, then growing it requires making it easier and more rewarding to contribute occasionally. Instead of trying to squeeze more work out of those who spend their life on Wikipedia, we need to broaden the base of those who contribute just a little bit.
Unfortunately, precisely because such people are only occasional contributors, their opinions aren't heard by the current Wikipedia process. They don't get involved in policy debates, they don't go to meetups, and they don't hang out with Jimbo Wales. And so things that might help them get pushed on the backburner, assuming they're even proposed."
Submitted for your consideration...., ~maru
On 9/4/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
not at all what I found. Almost every time I saw a substantive edit, I found the user who had contributed it was not an active user of the site. They generally had made less than 50 edits (typically around 10), usually on related pages. Most never even bothered to create an account."
[snip]
I wish Aaronsw had been a little more open about his metholodigy in his results.
While working a bots for automated vandalism I found pure diffwords to be a poor metric of whats actually changed because confused new users often manage to insert big gobs of crud that get reverted.
A simmlar test to this which used the IBM history flow tool to attribute all the text in the most recent version of an article to its orignal author did not find simmlar results. This might be because copyediting can cause the history flow tool to misattribute, or it might be indicitaive of a systematic flaw in Aaronsw's reseach.
In any case, if were going to do studies which sample only a handfull of articles, it would likely be better to do manual analysis... It wouldn't take long to step through 400 diffs given the right user interface.
On 04/09/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I wish Aaronsw had been a little more open about his metholodigy in his results. While working a bots for automated vandalism I found pure diffwords to be a poor metric of whats actually changed because confused new users often manage to insert big gobs of crud that get reverted. A simmlar test to this which used the IBM history flow tool to attribute all the text in the most recent version of an article to its orignal author did not find simmlar results. This might be because copyediting can cause the history flow tool to misattribute, or it might be indicitaive of a systematic flaw in Aaronsw's reseach.
Hop on the page and suggest useful approaches to him. I assume if he's running for the board because he thinks this is an important issue, he would probably prefer not to be leading himself up the garden path.
- d.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:24:07 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Yeah, he said it doesn't seem to be working, and it's not open. So when is this policy change going to be reverted?
Right after we can sign up another thousand admins to deal with the flood-tide of crap articles that anons create?
Guy (JzG)
On 05/09/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:24:07 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Yeah, he said it doesn't seem to be working, and it's not open. So when is this policy change going to be reverted?
Right after we can sign up another thousand admins to deal with the flood-tide of crap articles that anons create?
Please reread the thread so far - you're asserting one of the facts we explicitly don't have numbers on.
- d.
On 9/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Right after we can sign up another thousand admins to deal with the flood-tide of crap articles that anons create?
Personally I feel that any user we can trust, has a fair bit of experience and a few thousand edits should be a sysop anyway, but thats just my opinion.
On 05/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Right after we can sign up another thousand admins to deal with the flood-tide of crap articles that anons create?
Personally I feel that any user we can trust, has a fair bit of experience and a few thousand edits should be a sysop anyway, but thats just my opinion.
Well, that's *supposed* to be the criterion ...
- d.
Yes, thats criterion for, say, [[en:WP:RFA]], but at the same time RfA voters are being relatively critical and perfectly good candidates are being denied the position. In addition, users simply won't accept that times are changing and sometimes users can get the experience they need in far less time than previously required, i.e. 4 months can be enough for sysopship when a user makes 20 reasonable edits a day (i.e. 2400 edits), plus many more minor edits.
On 9/5/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Right after we can sign up another thousand admins to deal with the flood-tide of crap articles that anons create?
Personally I feel that any user we can trust, has a fair bit of experience and a few thousand edits should be a sysop anyway, but thats just my opinion.
Well, that's *supposed* to be the criterion ...
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:24:07 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Yeah, he said it doesn't seem to be working, and it's not open. So when is this policy change going to be reverted?
Right after we can sign up another thousand admins to deal with the flood-tide of crap articles that anons create?
How many more admins do you *really* think it would take. Certainly not 1000. Surely the 3 or 4 more clicks it takes to create a crap article now aren't stopping that many anons.
Well, I'm sure 1000 sysops dedicated to the task could do it, but we simply can't afford to dedicate a sysop to a specific task unless we sign up another 100 to make sure the 1000 don't make any mistakes, and yet another 100 to cover the gap left by the 100 who were originally sysops and were promoted to bureaucrat to handle the rights allocation of 1000 sysops, yet another 100 to refine policy so that less experienced users can work more efficiently and take care of the work not done by the 1300 odd who are now dedicated to sysop tasks...
On 9/5/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:24:07 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Yeah, he said it doesn't seem to be working, and it's not open. So when is this policy change going to be reverted?
Right after we can sign up another thousand admins to deal with the flood-tide of crap articles that anons create?
How many more admins do you *really* think it would take. Certainly not 1000. Surely the 3 or 4 more clicks it takes to create a crap article now aren't stopping that many anons. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/6/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm sure 1000 sysops dedicated to the task could do it, but we simply can't afford to dedicate a sysop to a specific task unless we sign up another 100 to make sure the 1000 don't make any mistakes, and yet another 100 to cover the gap left by the 100 who were originally sysops and were promoted to bureaucrat to handle the rights allocation of 1000 sysops, yet another 100 to refine policy so that less experienced users can work more efficiently and take care of the work not done by the 1300 odd who are now dedicated to sysop tasks...
If I, as an admin, were asked to dedicate myself to a particular task as a
condition of being an admin, I would just stop being an admin. Would you want to be an admin if all you could do was check articles created by non-logged-in users?
I have to agree with those who suggest that we won't see that big of an increase in the number of junk articles created. But if we do, the solution will not be to dedicate humans to cleaning up the mess.
-Rich [[W:en:User:Rholton]]