it seems that people enter articles into quality
assurance more often
than before having the flags - which at the end leads to higher
quality for these articles. but i am unsure if this feeling can be
better prooved somehow.
one thing seems to be a bug: with ff3 on linux i always get the
flagged revision and not the most current one, even if i unchecked
"show flagged revision" in the preferences.
rupert.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/5/7 Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se>se>:
Erik Moeller wrote:
In a nutshell, FlaggedRevs makes it possible to
assign
quality tags to individual article revisions, and to alter default
views based on the available tags.
Aka hacked up a nice script that shows how many
pages have been
"sighted" (basic vandalism check) on the German Wikipedia:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english
Given that FlaggedRevs has just been live for a day or so, a review
rate of 4.41% is quite impressive!
Wait now. When FlaggedRevs was first mentioned, the press started
to announce that censorship was being planned for Wikipedia.
This was countered with the explanation that flagging was a more
open regime than page locking. We no longer have to lock pages on
controversial topics, because we can allow free editing as long as
the non-logged-in majority gets to see the flagged/approved
version.
Is it really "impressive" to have this new "soft locking"
mechanism applied to a large number of pages? Wouldn't it be
better to show how few pages were in need of this protection?
And at the same time, to mention how many previously locked pages
have now been unlocked in the name of increased openness?
No, I don't think so. Having a flag on a page is just a way of saying
"this version is ok". Would it not be much better to have a version
that is 'ok' for ALL pages rather than just the controversial ones?
Would it really be a good thing to say "Only these few pages have
versions that are okay, we have no idea about the others, but we see
no reason to think they're not okay?"
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l