On 27/08/06, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
http://news.com.com/Can+German+engineering+fix+Wikipedia/2100-1038_3-6108495... A related source.... not the BBC. "We want to let anybody edit," Wales said, "but we don't want to show vandalized versions."
Yeah. When did Jimbo first ask for this, early 2005? People pretty much concurred it was a fantastic idea (logged-in editors get the live version, anon readers get the last-non-vandal-edit version), but it was considered technically rather painful indeed in the then-current structure of Mediawiki.
If it looks workable now, that's fantastic, and should help make it a better no. 17 website in the world *and* a good perpetual working draft.
- d.
On 8/27/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/06, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
http://news.com.com/Can+German+engineering+fix+Wikipedia/2100-1038_3-6108495... A related source.... not the BBC. "We want to let anybody edit," Wales said, "but we don't want to show vandalized versions."
Yeah. When did Jimbo first ask for this, early 2005? People pretty much concurred it was a fantastic idea (logged-in editors get the live version, anon readers get the last-non-vandal-edit version), but it was considered technically rather painful indeed in the then-current structure of Mediawiki.
If it looks workable now, that's fantastic, and should help make it a better no. 17 website in the world *and* a good perpetual working draft.
- d.
As I recall, we were happy when the proposed mechanism had a ten-minute or so time out mechanism, so it didn't turn into a ''de facto'' anon-edits-must-be-approved rather than an anti-vandalism mechanism, and to assure the anon that yes, the edit would show up soon. The de system seems to differ from the one we discussed.
~maru
At 20:46 -0400 27/8/06, maru dubshinki wrote:
On 8/27/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/06, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
http://news.com.com/Can+German+engineering+fix+Wikipedia/2100-1038_3-6108495...
A related source.... not the BBC. "We want to let anybody edit," Wales said, "but we don't want to show vandalized versions."
Yeah. When did Jimbo first ask for this, early 2005? People pretty much concurred it was a fantastic idea (logged-in editors get the live version, anon readers get the last-non-vandal-edit version), but it was considered technically rather painful indeed in the then-current structure of Mediawiki.
If it looks workable now, that's fantastic, and should help make it a better no. 17 website in the world *and* a good perpetual working draft.
- d.
As I recall, we were happy when the proposed mechanism had a ten-minute or so time out mechanism, so it didn't turn into a ''de facto'' anon-edits-must-be-approved rather than an anti-vandalism mechanism, and to assure the anon that yes, the edit would show up soon. The de system seems to differ from the one we discussed.
~maru
Indeed. The German Wikipedia can set their own rules, and anybody who happens to read the German Wikipedia will enjoy that set of rules.
Will this fragment Wikipedia? Will there be different rules for Japanese, French, Polish, Dutch.... and the rest?
And what about Commons? The Featured Picture status leads to the sort of issues that bug me, such as the removal of Featured Picture status.
Gordo
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/08/06, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
http://news.com.com/Can+German+engineering+fix+Wikipedia/2100-1038_3-6108495... A related source.... not the BBC. "We want to let anybody edit," Wales said, "but we don't want to show vandalized versions."
Yeah. When did Jimbo first ask for this, early 2005? People pretty much concurred it was a fantastic idea (logged-in editors get the live version, anon readers get the last-non-vandal-edit version), but it was considered technically rather painful indeed in the then-current structure of Mediawiki.
If it looks workable now, that's fantastic, and should help make it a better no. 17 website in the world *and* a good perpetual working draft.
I have the same opinion. Most of the improvements to Wikipedia that have been ongoing, like requiring citations, improve the average quality of articles. At any given second, though, the quality can always be quite abysmal. A system like this one essentially smooths out the presented version, so the average reader sees something more like the average recent state of the article, rather than its instantaneous state. That doesn't magically make articles good, but it reduces the number of times people see really bad articles.
-Mark
At 01:42 -0400 28/8/06, Delirium wrote:
[...]
I have the same opinion. Most of the improvements to Wikipedia that have been ongoing, like requiring citations, improve the average quality of articles. At any given second, though, the quality can always be quite abysmal. A system like this one essentially smooths out the presented version, so the average reader sees something more like the average recent state of the article, rather than its instantaneous state. That doesn't magically make articles good, but it reduces the number of times people see really bad articles.
-Mark
I have another reason to speak against this. As an editor, I sometimes create an article that is very small, a few words. At the point, I discover a few pages that link to this article and so I know that article has some importance.
Also, stubs are great for attracting attention(!). Sometimes, stubs attract a request for deletion, but in fact the article will grow a reasonable state (see reference below). If deleted, nobody will see it. If hidden from general view, then it will only be seen by the upper class of editors, who may not be aware of the (potential) significance of the article.
Gordo,
Drifting on the B Ark.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Palumbo%2C_Baron_Palumbo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Palumbo%2C_Baron_Palumbo
At 23:08 +0100 27/8/06, David Gerard wrote:
On 27/08/06, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
http://news.com.com/Can+German+engineering+fix+Wikipedia/2100-1038_3-6108495... A related source.... not the BBC. "We want to let anybody edit," Wales said, "but we don't want to show vandalized versions."
Yeah. When did Jimbo first ask for this, early 2005? People pretty much concurred it was a fantastic idea (logged-in editors get the live version, anon readers get the last-non-vandal-edit version), but it was considered technically rather painful indeed in the then-current structure of Mediawiki.
I think that point Bill Thompson is make is not technical. It is that a wiki is open, and by allowing two classes of user in the way you describe, that it stops being open. The GFDL licence allows changes, but this model allows changes, but only by the upper class of users.
Are we heading backwards to Nupedia?
Nupedia was a public peer-reviewed general encyclopedia created by volunteer scholars...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia
If it looks workable now, that's fantastic, and should help make it a better no. 17 website in the world *and* a good perpetual working draft.
- d.
David, I disagree. If you close the system down and away from open edits, then somebody will take a copy of the English Wikipedia, open the system to edits, and issue a press release. What happens next? History repeating?
Gordo