This is telly and Very Important. I'll have my suit and tie ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight
Perhaps I'll get Paxmanned!
I NEED INFORMATION.
* When's Flagged Revs being switched on? * Where's the latest version of *precisely what's happening*? * etc?
I can arse it through for Radio 5, but Newsnight is a bit scary!
- d.
2009/8/25 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
This is telly and Very Important. I'll have my suit and tie ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight
Perhaps I'll get Paxmanned!
I NEED INFORMATION.
- When's Flagged Revs being switched on?
- Where's the latest version of *precisely what's happening*?
- etc?
I can arse it through for Radio 5, but Newsnight is a bit scary!
For those not familiar with British TV, Newsnight is probably the most highbrow current affairs program we have. This is a very big deal! Best of luck to you David, I know you'll do a fantastic job.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/25 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
This is telly and Very Important. I'll have my suit and tie ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight
Perhaps I'll get Paxmanned!
I NEED INFORMATION.
- When's Flagged Revs being switched on?
- Where's the latest version of *precisely what's happening*?
- etc?
I can arse it through for Radio 5, but Newsnight is a bit scary!
For those not familiar with British TV, Newsnight is probably the most highbrow current affairs program we have. This is a very big deal! Best of luck to you David, I know you'll do a fantastic job.
I wonder if Jeremy Paxman or his researchers read this list? :-)
Carcharoth
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:31 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is telly and Very Important. I'll have my suit and tie ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight
Perhaps I'll get Paxmanned!
I NEED INFORMATION.
- When's Flagged Revs being switched on?
- Where's the latest version of *precisely what's happening*?
- etc?
I can arse it through for Radio 5, but Newsnight is a bit scary!
- d.
As far as I can tell from IRC chats with some of the coders hanging out with Brion at Wikimania, a lot of this is still up in the air but this is still the closest thing to canon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revi...
The Foundation has apparently asked the developers to focus on ironing out the technical hurdles to rolling out flagged revs to BLPs, but (contrary to the NYT story that started this off) only passive patrolling of BLPs is part of the current community-created plan. According to that plan, for a 2 month trial, active flagging (where unflagged versions don't show up by default) will only be used in place of semi-protection/protection. BLPs will be available for flagging, but unflagged edits will still go live.
Also, someone recommended that the just-announced $2million grant from Omidyar Network (and the addition of Matt Halprin to the board?) might be worth mentioning too. But that might just confuse things.
-Sage
2009/8/25 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
As far as I can tell from IRC chats with some of the coders hanging out with Brion at Wikimania, a lot of this is still up in the air but this is still the closest thing to canon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revi...
Yep, that page is the closest thing there is to a canon summary of the proposed configuration for en.wp. Generally next steps are:
1) Finalize setup of http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page with article import from en.wp;
2) Test proposed configuration (UI and workflows) and make necessary fixes;
3) Rollout on en.wp.
3) should ideally happen within 8 weeks or so, but that depends in part on people's experience during the testing period, and the extent to which we have to make further revisions to the extension.
The FlaggedRevs extension has been used in many of our wikis, including the second-largest Wikipedia, for more than a year. However, contrary to what's been reported in some media, the community has had very thoughtful conversations about the ideal setup for en.wp, which isn't going to be the same as the one used for de.wp, and we want to make sure that the software properly supports it without causing confusion, especially in light of our general efforts to make Wikipedia easier to use and easier to contribute to.
WiFi in Buenos Aires willing, I'll try to whip up a summary for the Wikimedia blog at blog.wikimedia.org tonight to help reduce some of the confusion.
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Erik Moeller wrote:
The FlaggedRevs extension has been used in many of our wikis, including the second-largest Wikipedia, for more than a year. However, contrary to what's been reported in some media, the community has had very thoughtful conversations about the ideal setup for en.wp, which isn't going to be the same as the one used for de.wp, and we want to make sure that the software properly supports it without causing confusion, especially in light of our general efforts to make Wikipedia easier to use and easier to contribute to.
In speaking to the press today, one of the things I believe I heard in an intro segment on a live radio discussion was that WP would have professional editors flagging trusted content. I didn't get a chance to correct that, and I know who gets to review is still up in the air to some extent [1], but that's a likely source of confusion to the public apparently.
2009/8/25 Joseph Reagle reagle@mit.edu:
In speaking to the press today, one of the things I believe I heard in an intro segment on a live radio discussion was that WP would have professional editors flagging trusted content. I didn't get a chance to correct that, and I know who gets to review is still up in the air to some extent [1], but that's a likely source of confusion to the public apparently.
IME the problem is the use of the word "editor". We use it as in "tens of thousands of volunteers", everyone else assumes we mean as in "the boss who decides what goes in." It's a jargon versus English problem.
Starting with all the admins. Presumably any active editor who isn't a problem child will get it too, similar to rollback.
- d.
2009/8/26 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/8/25 Joseph Reagle reagle@mit.edu:
In speaking to the press today, one of the things I believe I heard in an intro segment on a live radio discussion was that WP would have professional editors flagging trusted content. I didn't get a chance to correct that, and I know who gets to review is still up in the air to some extent [1], but that's a likely source of confusion to the public apparently.
IME the problem is the use of the word "editor". We use it as in "tens of thousands of volunteers", everyone else assumes we mean as in "the boss who decides what goes in." It's a jargon versus English problem.
I think the problem comes from the fact that all our articles are collaborative works. Normally there is a writer and an editor and they are distinct jobs. We have everyone as editors since everyone can change what other people have written. That is very unusual and the English language hasn't had a change to adapt to it.
Try this as a general approach:
- This is not a new idea. - We've got vandalism down to under one article in 200, and a variety of advanced programs and patrols of hundreds of users who get the usual fixing time down to seconds or minutes when it does happen. - But obviously we want to do even better. - A lot of people gauge Wikipedia in terms of quantity of edits. The last 2 years the focus has been on improving quality of edits, and especially, finding even better ways to prevent deliberately harmful edits such as vandalism. - Our historical answer is "protection" - everyone is prevented from editing a page if it is being badly mis-edited. That's highly disruptive and frustrates many edits since one bad apple can hold up the process. - A more recent addition is the Abuse filter, a system that allows flagrantly bad edits to be prevented but lets through good ones. It's a program though so it can't differentiate apparently good posts that are really not good. - Our newest answer is therefore this thing called "flagged revisions" - the requirement that when an edit is made to a sensitive article, someone who's been round a while, which is one of thousands of users, checks to say it's okay, before letting it go "live". - Our test bed has been the german wikipedia, the second largest language to English in the Wikipedia websites. - Our main target and test bed is articles about people, because those are seen to be more sensitive and of special importance to get right. The wider reported vandalism cases usually relate to these articles, just because articles about people are so visible. So it makes sense to apply possible solutions to these and see what effect it has on editing quantity and quality.
That's how I'd explain it (condensed and simplified as needed for the media concerned).
FT2
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/26 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/8/25 Joseph Reagle reagle@mit.edu:
In speaking to the press today, one of the things I believe I heard in
an intro segment on a live radio discussion was that WP would have professional editors flagging trusted content. I didn't get a chance to correct that, and I know who gets to review is still up in the air to some extent [1], but that's a likely source of confusion to the public apparently.
IME the problem is the use of the word "editor". We use it as in "tens of thousands of volunteers", everyone else assumes we mean as in "the boss who decides what goes in." It's a jargon versus English problem.
I think the problem comes from the fact that all our articles are collaborative works. Normally there is a writer and an editor and they are distinct jobs. We have everyone as editors since everyone can change what other people have written. That is very unusual and the English language hasn't had a change to adapt to it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/26 FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com:
Try this as a general approach: - This is not a new idea. - We've got vandalism down to under one article in 200, and a variety of advanced programs and patrols of hundreds of users who get the usual fixing time down to seconds or minutes when it does happen. - But obviously we want to do even better. - A lot of people gauge Wikipedia in terms of quantity of edits. The last 2 years the focus has been on improving quality of edits, and especially, finding even better ways to prevent deliberately harmful edits such as vandalism. - Our historical answer is "protection" - everyone is prevented from editing a page if it is being badly mis-edited. That's highly disruptive and frustrates many edits since one bad apple can hold up the process. - A more recent addition is the Abuse filter, a system that allows flagrantly bad edits to be prevented but lets through good ones. It's a program though so it can't differentiate apparently good posts that are really not good. - Our newest answer is therefore this thing called "flagged revisions" - the requirement that when an edit is made to a sensitive article, someone who's been round a while, which is one of thousands of users, checks to say it's okay, before letting it go "live". - Our test bed has been the german wikipedia, the second largest language to English in the Wikipedia websites. - Our main target and test bed is articles about people, because those are seen to be more sensitive and of special importance to get right. The wider reported vandalism cases usually relate to these articles, just because articles about people are so visible. So it makes sense to apply possible solutions to these and see what effect it has on editing quantity and quality. That's how I'd explain it (condensed and simplified as needed for the media concerned).
Or, to precis:
1.) Oxygen is good. 2.) Competition is bad. 3.) I like jello.
Leave out the jello to avoid any confusion.
- d.
2009/8/25 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
According to that plan, for a 2 month trial, active flagging (where unflagged versions don't show up by default) will only be used in place of semi-protection/protection. BLPs will be available for flagging, but unflagged edits will still go live.
Yep - flagging as and when needed, in place of protection.
If we have days-old unapproved revisions at the end of the two months, that'll be a failure because editors wouldn't stand for it. But, speaking as a BIG FAN of flagged revs for BLPs, I'll be trying to do my part to make this work!
- d.
2009/8/26 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
If we have days-old unapproved revisions at the end of the two months, that'll be a failure because editors wouldn't stand for it. But, speaking as a BIG FAN of flagged revs for BLPs, I'll be trying to do my part to make this work!
Me too! I haven't gone on RCP for ages, but I'll find some time to keep an eye on reviewing edits to flag protected pages (assuming I'm given reviewer rights - has a decision been made on what the requirements will be yet?).