Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute protection will still be needed. Will this still be available?
Yes, ordinary full protection is still available, as is ordinary semi-protection.
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using {{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really stop edit wars.
OT: Is there any way I can make my messages thread properly without having all messages sent to my email? I prefer to read the web archive.
2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 apoc2400@gmail.com:
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using {{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really stop edit wars.
I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time.
- d.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:37 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time.
Oh, interesting point. Imagine a page gets flag-checked every sunday. On monday, what would be the point of edit warring? You know your edit isn't going to survive until sunday, so no one will see it...
(Assuming edit warrers are logical...)
Steve
2009/8/27 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 apoc2400@gmail.com:
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using {{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really stop edit wars.
I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time.
The standard rule is that even admins aren't supposed to edit protected pages. They are meant to stay as they are while people discuss. I don't see the benefit to full-flagged protection over full regular protection. It might be useful for things like widely used templates that aren't protected due to edit wars, but that's about it.
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The standard rule is that even admins aren't supposed to edit protected pages. They are meant to stay as they are while people discuss. I don't see the benefit to full-flagged protection over full regular protection. It might be useful for things like widely used templates that aren't protected due to edit wars, but that's about it.
Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. Discussion is a poor substitute for editing.
- d.
2009/8/28 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The standard rule is that even admins aren't supposed to edit protected pages. They are meant to stay as they are while people discuss. I don't see the benefit to full-flagged protection over full regular protection. It might be useful for things like widely used templates that aren't protected due to edit wars, but that's about it.
Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. Discussion is a poor substitute for editing.
Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to force people into a discussion model which works better in those situations.
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/8/28 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. Discussion is a poor substitute for editing.
Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to force people into a discussion model which works better in those situations.
Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think the lack of visible reward will be helpful in dealing with everyday edit warriors. (If people with the reviewer bit edit-war with it, one or both is likely to get a strong word at the very least.)
- d.
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new contributors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/8/28 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. Discussion is a poor substitute for editing.
Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to force people into a discussion model which works better in those situations.
Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think the lack of visible reward will be helpful in dealing with everyday edit warriors. (If people with the reviewer bit edit-war with it, one or both is likely to get a strong word at the very least.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Lack of visible reward. Yes I think that's is it, or part of it anyway. It's why I've been fixated at Knol for a while. Wanting to see my own name in lights. Too bad Wikipedia couldn't have a sister project for publishing scholarly papers. Or could we? Or do we?
Will Johnson
-----Original Message----- From: David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new contributors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/8/28 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. Discussion is a poor substitute for editing.
Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to force people into a discussion model which works better in those situations.
Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think the lack of visible reward will be helpful in dealing with everyday edit warriors. (If people with the reviewer bit edit-war with it, one or both is likely to get a strong word at the very least.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new contributors.
What can we do about that?
Emily On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:08 PM, David Goodman wrote:
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new contributors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/8/28 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. Discussion is a poor substitute for editing.
Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to force people into a discussion model which works better in those situations.
Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think the lack of visible reward will be helpful in dealing with everyday edit warriors. (If people with the reviewer bit edit-war with it, one or both is likely to get a strong word at the very least.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new contributors.
What can we do about that?
Emily
In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management, 30% does the other work, and 60% come an go as they please. In a way, it is for the best since you actually get care an concern rather than forced labor. ~Keegan
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Emily Monroebluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think the lack of visible reward will be helpful in dealing with everyday edit warriors. (If people with the reviewer bit edit-war with it, one or both is likely to get a strong word at the very least.)
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new contributors.
What can we do about that?
This is a bit of a tangent, but I think there's actually a huge amount of potential for building other types of visible rewards into the system (beyond the gratification of seeing one's edits go live). We do almost nothing to systematically point editors toward high-priority tasks.
There are a lot of ways that might be done; here's an idea I wrote up after other people brought it up at a recent Boston meetup: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Add_video_game-like_features
-Sage
One issue that's bugged me for awhile wrt flagged revisions is whether we'll have a problem with people saying that [[m:The Wrong Version]] is still flagged, and theirs hasn't yet been. Granted, if this becomes an issue, it can be easily enough solved by flagging the current version (and, if necessary, applying the usual 3rr sanctions) - but is it likely to be one frequently enough to be a practical inconvenience for the community?
Pakaran
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Apoc 2400apoc2400@gmail.com wrote:
Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute protection will still be needed. Will this still be available?
Yes, ordinary full protection is still available, as is ordinary semi-protection.
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using {{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really stop edit wars.
OT: Is there any way I can make my messages thread properly without having all messages sent to my email? I prefer to read the web archive. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l