On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales
<jwales(a)wikia-inc.com> wrote:
On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
Yes it is, and it's an important one.
Several of us had already
been
working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing
had
widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful
if more
of
the recommendations on improving the software
were incorporated,
thus our
recommendation that it not proceed so rapidly.
I respect what you are saying here, very much. But I think the right
approach is always "release early, release often". There is no
need to
rush, but there is also no reason not to release fixes as they are
available, because there is no particular "ship date" with
marketing, etc.
Jimmy, here's where you're wrong. The first version was marketed as
the
solution that would allow the [[George W. Bush]] article to be
publicly
edited - it was marketed that way on and off wiki - and instead we
had 40
hours of non-stop IP vandalism and browser crashes for almost every
reviewer. (The first problem was easily anticipated by just about
every
administrator on the site, and the second one by anyone who'd
already seen
what had happened with other very large articles.)
This "product" has to be sold to admins to get them to use it; they
saw the
first version and all of its significant problems and aren't very
interested. And until there is a product that passes their smell
test, they
still won't be interested. So installing an "upgrade" that hasn't
resolved
ALL of the significant issues is not going to interest the
"consumers".
The advantage of a coordinated effort of a new trial with an upgraded
release that has addressed all of the significant issues *and* has
been
well-tested on the test wiki is that it can be used to market the
tool. It
doesn't matter whether or not it works well if the people in the
position to
use the tool cannot be persuaded it is worthy of their attention.
Take a
look at the stats, Jimmy: Six administrators were responsible for
entering
80% of the articles into the first trial, and another 12 responsible
for the
next 17%. Most administrators were not interested the first time
around.
It's
pretty hard to maintain motivation, though, when it's clear
that the
software's going to be a permanent feature regardless of what the
project
does or thinks, and that any further "trial" is not going to
change that
fact.
I think that's very very far from true. I think that everything the
Foundation has said, and everything that I have said, and everything
that (nearly) everyone on all sides has said, indicates nearly 100%
universal agreement that in order for the feature to be enabled
permanently, it has to achieve consensus.
Consensus is not a "hold one vote and give
up if you don't make it"
process, but rather an iterative give-and-take.
If I believed that the current version was the best that the
Foundation
could deliver, I would be adamant about just shutting down PC as
soon as
is practical, and believe that the right way forward would be to push
for major expansion of the use of semi-protection. I would hate
to do
that, because I think that a well-implemented PC is a better solution
than semi-protection, striking a better balance.
My point is this: I think it very far from a foregone conclusion
that we
will have PC in use in the longterm. It has to improve a lot before
that can happen. The early signs, though, are that it was popular.
I'm really curious to know what metric you're using to determine
that it was
"popular". The *idea* is popular with a significant segment of the
community, which is where much of the support in the two polls came
from;
but the *tool* itself wasn't very popular with many editors. And the
concept
of administrator-granted "reviewer" permissions went over like a lead
balloon with a pretty big segment of the community.
Put the upgrades on the test wiki. Recruit a pile of editors (not just
administrators) to really put it through its paces and drive it
hard, both
those who are technically savvy and those whose strength is
content. These
editors are your potential change agents; if they're convinced it's
working
satisfactorily and that major issues have been resolved, they will
spread
the word on-wiki. Sticking poorly tested software upgrades onto the
#7
website, and expecting people to be enthusiastic, is remarkably
optimistic.
Risker/Anne
Regret I was really not involved much in the trial or polls (mostly
been on wiki break for the past ~9 months) but quite concerned now
given Risker's concerns about the software being buggy and other issues.
And seeing people that I have lots of respect for in hot debate (both
sides) concerns me... seems tricky to find the right balance and
solution for moving forward.
[maybe setting rights to bureaucrats or some higher level for now?
Allowing only more narrow testing maybe in non-article space or
something? Until we can decide what/how/when to move forward with next
trial...just throwing ideas out]
Anyway, I would like to be more informed and try testing in some test
space (is there a test wiki for this?) and some summary of the key
issues that I can see?
@aude
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l