On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Sorry, where I said AbuseFilter I meant to say FlaggedRevisions. I'm not sure on how AbuseFilter came to be agreed on.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Jennifer Riggs <jriggs@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm curious. In your perspective who is doing the central management that makes it difficult for ideas to percolate up? WMF, Jimmy, Board, select administrators/highly involved community members? In your opinion, is there an infrastructure barrier or a personalities one?
jriggs
It's an infrastructure, policy and outreach issue. I assume that every single person has the very best for the projects in mind and is doing
it
for
the right reasons.
That said, I see the definition of community being interpreted very narrowly. I liked what I saw with AbuseFilter but that was a singular
case.
Filtering edits is almost on the same level as showing advertisements.
In
these rare cases any change you try to make will quickly make its way through the community because many people will be outraged. There are a
lot
of other situations that don't propagate as well, not because they
aren't
very important, but because people just don't know about them.
I really like the ParserFunctions example. Enabled with hardly any discussion and now used 500,000 times on the English Wikipedia. It had
a
major effect on Wikipedia that made it much harder to use. And now we
are
stuck in a programming mindset and we all assume that we all agreed to
come
here. It just isn't the case. You won't be able to find where that
agreement
happened.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On which wiki do you mean, for FlaggedRevs? For the English Wikipedia, my understanding is that consensus was reached in favor of a limited trial for FlaggedRevs three months ago, but it hasn't been enabled yet because the tech team is still tidying things up and checking that everything works < http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-May/043187.html%3E. This was not a matter of the Foundation consulting the community—the community petitioned the Foundation, from what I can tell.
i didn't know it happened that way. I thought that, quite some time ago, the Foundation paid a developer 20k to develop the extension, and then got community approval for at trial?