http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x....
Talk amongst yourselves.
Brian wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x....
Talk amongst yourselves.
Shrug, one more person discovers WP.
Although most days I'm irritated by anons in one way or another, requiring login creation doesn't change the equation that much; imagine everybody just creating logins named the same as each IP they use, and adding "-1", "-2", "-3" for reuses of an IP number. At most it would help in tracking groups of related changes.
The problem of unsourced libels is not unique to us, we share that with the blogosphere. We do have the mechanisms to fix it, but not enough knowledgeable people doing the watching - if I had been watching this guy's page, I might have let the addition go through, because it sounds plausible, includes a caveat that the claim might have been unfounded, and since 99% of additions don't include a source, it's not unusual that way either.
We could just get a lot more hardnosed about reverting suspect changes; since our last discussion about all this, I've personally taken a tougher line about instantly reverting poor changes, and so far no one seems to have protested my high-handedness. I wonder how it would go if I summarily reverted all unsourced edits??
Stan
If we all do it suddenly, it would obviously not go well, but if we all start gradually insisting on sources or removal it might establish a new standard of work.
Fred
On Nov 30, 2005, at 7:56 AM, Stan Shebs wrote:
I wonder how it would go if I summarily reverted all unsourced edits??
Stan
I hesitated to post this message because I don't want to take credit for the idea. It was actually an idea put forth by Johntex, relayed to me after the recent meetup he'd gone to. I'm not sure that he subscribes to wikien-l, though, so I thought I'd mention it FWIW. I believe he also relayed the idea to Jimbo so perhaps this has already been circulated.
Johntex's idea is essentially a spinoff of an "approved" version. He essentially proposed that Wikipedia create an additional "tab" people could click on to see the last "approved" version. Everybody can still edit the non-approved version, just as normal. And I guess, taking the idea out to its logical extreme, at intervals the two versiosn would be compared and any new information meshed into the "approved" version. This way everybody can still edit and contribute, but anyone concerned about ensuring the version they're looking at has been vetted thoroughly could simply click on the "approved" tab.
Thoughts?
Kate
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Katefan0 wrote:
Johntex's idea is essentially a spinoff of an "approved" version. He essentially proposed that Wikipedia create an additional "tab" people could click on to see the last "approved" version. Everybody can still edit the non-approved version, just as normal. And I guess, taking the idea out to its logical extreme, at intervals the two versiosn would be compared and any new information meshed into the "approved" version. This way everybody can still edit and contribute, but anyone concerned about ensuring the version they're looking at has been vetted thoroughly could simply click on the "approved" tab.
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3303
would be in my opinion much more useful than a complicated article validation form anyone can manipulate.
greetings, elian
--- Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3303
would be in my opinion much more useful than a complicated article validation form anyone can manipulate.
For a second there, it looked like someone was suggesting Siegenthaller should file his complaint at Bugzilla! Which, might not be a bad idea, were it not that bad press is good press (especially when written by apparently old instututional fogies concerned with an issue indiscernable from vanity.)
Again, it would seem that there are indeed only two kinds of people in the world... Anyway, let it not be said that were concerned, for indeed we have no obligation to jump when the critics say 'jump,' just because they happen to have just discovered 'the internet.'
Stevertigo
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Katefan0 katefan0@yahoo.com wrote:
Johntex's idea is essentially a spinoff of an "approved" version. He essentially proposed that Wikipedia create an additional "tab" people could click on to see the last "approved" version.
<snip> Thoughts?
I think it's a very good idea.
~~~~ Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Model Search 2005 - Find the next catwalk superstars - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/hot/model-search/
On 11/30/05, Katefan0 katefan0@yahoo.com wrote:
I hesitated to post this message because I don't want to take credit for the idea. It was actually an idea put forth by Johntex, relayed to me after the recent meetup he'd gone to. I'm not sure that he subscribes to wikien-l, though, so I thought I'd mention it FWIW. I believe he also relayed the idea to Jimbo so perhaps this has already been circulated.
Johntex's idea is essentially a spinoff of an "approved" version. He essentially proposed that Wikipedia create an additional "tab" people could click on to see the last "approved" version. Everybody can still edit the non-approved version, just as normal. And I guess, taking the idea out to its logical extreme, at intervals the two versiosn would be compared and any new information meshed into the "approved" version. This way everybody can still edit and contribute, but anyone concerned about ensuring the version they're looking at has been vetted thoroughly could simply click on the "approved" tab.
Kate, it's very similar to this:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_marker_feature
And it seems like it's the least disruptive, highest ROI feature that we could try, and the implementation would be simple.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
That does seem rather similar. GMTA. Has there been any coalescing behind this type of idea?
K.
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/05, Katefan0 katefan0@yahoo.com wrote:
I hesitated to post this message because I don't
want
to take credit for the idea. It was actually an
idea
put forth by Johntex, relayed to me after the
recent
meetup he'd gone to. I'm not sure that he
subscribes
to wikien-l, though, so I thought I'd mention it
FWIW.
I believe he also relayed the idea to Jimbo so perhaps this has already been circulated.
Johntex's idea is essentially a spinoff of an "approved" version. He essentially proposed that Wikipedia create an additional "tab" people could click on to see the last "approved" version. Everybody can still edit the non-approved version, just as normal. And I guess, taking the idea out
to
its logical extreme, at intervals the two versiosn would be compared and any new information meshed
into
the "approved" version. This way everybody can
still
edit and contribute, but anyone concerned about ensuring the version they're looking at has been vetted thoroughly could simply click on the
"approved"
tab.
Kate, it's very similar to this:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_marker_feature
And it seems like it's the least disruptive, highest ROI feature that we could try, and the implementation would be simple.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
Katefan0 wrote:
That does seem rather similar. GMTA. Has there been any coalescing behind this type of idea?
There's been a few such ideas. Have a look through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Editorial_validation . (That's where all the "Wikipedia 1.0"-type ideas go too.)
- d.