On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Alex Sawczynec <glasscobra15(a)gmail.com> wrote: I didn't hear of the new poll until well after it was open. Was there a watchlist notice? Carcharoth

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Correction: I heard about it on 17th March. But it was through the grapevine, not by seeing any official announcement. Carcharoth

I heard about it on Wikipedia Review... -- Alex (User:Majorly)

CC'd this to Foundation-l. There is a poll currently on the English Wikipedia to implement a version of FlaggedRevisions. The poll was introduced left into the vacuum which remained after the first poll failed to result in concrete action. At the close of poll #1, Jimmy indicated that he thought it had passed and should result in an FR implementation. When he received some protest, he announced that he would shortly unveil a new compromise proposal. While I'm sure he had the best of intentions, this proposal hasn't materialized and the result has been limbo. Into the limbo rides another proposal, this one masquerading as the hoped for compromise. Unfortunately, it isn't - at least, not in the sense that it is a middle ground between those who want FR implemented and those who oppose it. What it does do is compromise, as in fundamentally weaken, the concept of FR and the effort to improve our handling of BLPs. The proposed implementation introduces all the bureaucracy and effort of FlaggedRevisions, with few of the benefits. FlaggedProtection, similar to semi-protection, can be placed on any article. In some instances, FlaggedProtection is identical to normal full protection - only, it still allows edit wars on unsighted versions (woohoo). Patrolled revisions are passive - you can patrol them, but doing so won't impact what the general reader will see. It gives us the huge and useless backlog which is exactly what we should not want, and exactly what the opposition has predicted. The only likely result is that inertia will prevent any further FR implementation, and we'll be stuck with a substitute that grants no real benefit. What I would like to see, and what I have been hoping to see, is either implementation of the prior proposal (taking a form similar to that used by de.wp) or actual proposal of a true compromise version. The current poll asks us to just give up. Nathan

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com<ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com> I think this is an overly optimistic view of the post-poll future. First, your (b) benefit falls down because what the community will see is a process that takes a lot of work and provides no true improvement. Second, your assumption that future adjustments will be made "easily through policy" is extraordinarily optimistic - since when are policy alterations requiring significant changes to an extension easily made? What happens when the 2 month trial expires? Another big poll on whether it should be extended, modified, or left in the dustbin of Wikipedia history? You should be able to predict all the oppose arguments on that next poll - its bureaucratic, it doesn't fit in with "anyone can edit", etc. Add one more - no obvious benefit to justify the big backlog of unpatrolled revisions, which *will happen* if for no other reason than patrolling revisions seems to achieve very little. The first two reasons for opposition torpedoed the first poll, and this poll offers little improvement against those largely ideological positions. Add in the third, and the chances of a superior and further implementation of FR someday down the line drop dramatically. Nathan

Nathan wrote: First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous thing. It seems to be a victory of "something must be done - and this is something" over common sense. This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and introduces a nightmare, all at once. Nice indeed. Scott

And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way of taking it forward that would have sufficient support, let's hear it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "doc" &lt;doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com&gt; To: "English Wikipedia" &lt;wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Monday, 30 March, 2009 23:23:31 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 Nathan wrote: First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous thing. It seems to be a victory of "something must be done - and this is something" over common sense. This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and introduces a nightmare, all at once. Nice indeed. Scott _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Your argument is spurious. It may well be that this proposal is the only one that would pass - but that neither means that it is good, nor that it is a good thing that it is passing. The proposal IMO is damaging to the cause of using flagged revisions in a manner that will help BLP victims. Doing nothing would be better than this. Your argument is the logical fallacy that because "something must be done" means "anything is better than the status quo", or that "any movement is a step in the right direction" - which does not consider that one can move, and move in the wrong direction. Andrew Turvey wrote:

On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Nathan wrote: If I were a developer or a WMF executive, I might pause at allowing major changes to be made at the whims of a community as cancerous as ours. -Phil