Hi all, It's been 10 days since the last note on flagged revisions, which is sufficiently important to warrant a follow up at this point in my view. I'll try and focus the questions a bit in order not to pester, but with the intention of helping things forward; see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18244 for bug details. * Flagged Revisions is approved for use on the English Wikipedia, my understanding is that there really isn't that much technical work still to do on the extension - is this true? * Is there anything a regular editor such as myself can do to help prioritise this in the hearts, minds and fingers of our wonderful developers? * Personally, I believe this function to be one of the most important matters before the foundation currently, I further believe that this view is relatively widely held (and sure, widely reviled too - but this is a wiki, right!) - I've copied foundation-l in on this note with the intention of further general discussion occurring there, and bug-specific chat only on the wiki-tech list, I hope this is an appropriate use of resources :-) I've offered appreciation, a dollop of charm, and a little bit of money to try and keep this moving forward.... I'm not sure I'm above offering sex, so please throw me a bone for the sake of the decorum of these lists, if nothing else :-) best, Peter, PM.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.comwrote:
Am I confused or didn't enwp approved flagged revisions, but then it was held up due to "purely technical reasons" ... what is this crap now?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au Date: Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] flagged revisions To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM, private musingsthepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
with apologies for re-vitalising a slightly old thread -I have a couple
of
follow ups, which it'd be great to try and make some progress on.... My understanding is that Aaron (whom I haven't 'met' - so hello!) has completed work on a test configuration of flagged revisions - I hope it's appropraite for me to ask directly on this list whether or not Aaron considers this development complete? (my understanding is that the
extension
is pretty much ready to go?) There is understandably considerable interest in the timeframe for installing flagged revisions, I would hope it would be a positive step to set some timeframes a bit tighter than 'hopefully by wikimedia' ;-) - is this list an appropriate context for such discusison, and if so
(hopefullly)
- could someone appropriately empowered flesh out the next steps a bit
more,
and maybe try and establish a timetable of sorts? My intention in posting about this every so often is to ensure that such
an
important development doesn't sort of slip through the cracks - I think communication on this matter has to date been ok, but not great - it'll
be
cool to improve it a bit :-) cheers, Peter, PM.
The implementations depend on a per wiki basis depending on consensus, for example, wikinews and a few others such as the German Wikipedia already run it.
The en.wiki is currently also looking at a slightly modified version nicked named "Flagged Protections" which is basically designed to work the same way protection does, articles are only covered by it when protected to a certain level.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I agree this is important, to the projects and to the progress of flagged revs as a concept (which is still one step of a long journey). It is worth a quick thread on f-l for that reason if not for general interest.
Sj
samuel klein. sj@laptop.org. +1 617 529 4266
On Jun 19, 2009 6:47 PM, "private musings" thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, It's been 10 days since the last note on flagged revisions, which is sufficiently important to warrant a follow up at this point in my view. I'll try and focus the questions a bit in order not to pester, but with the intention of helping things forward; see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18244 for bug details. * Flagged Revisions is approved for use on the English Wikipedia, my understanding is that there really isn't that much technical work still to do on the extension - is this true? * Is there anything a regular editor such as myself can do to help prioritise this in the hearts, minds and fingers of our wonderful developers? * Personally, I believe this function to be one of the most important matters before the foundation currently, I further believe that this view is relatively widely held (and sure, widely reviled too - but this is a wiki, right!) - I've copied foundation-l in on this note with the intention of further general discussion occurring there, and bug-specific chat only on the wiki-tech list, I hope this is an appropriate use of resources :-) I've offered appreciation, a dollop of charm, and a little bit of money to try and keep this moving forward.... I'm not sure I'm above offering sex, so please throw me a bone for the sake of the decorum of these lists, if nothing else :-) best, Peter, PM.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.comwrote:
Am I confused or didn't enwp approved flagged revisions, but then it was held up due to "purely technical reasons" ... what is this crap now?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au Date: Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] flagged revisions To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM, private musingsthepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
with apologies for re-vitalising a slightly old thread -I have a couple
of
follow ups, which it'd be great to try and make some progress on.... My understanding is that Aaron (whom I haven't 'met' - so hello!) has completed work on a test configuration of flagged revisions - I hope
it's
appropraite for me to ask directly on this list whether or not Aaron considers this development complete? (my understanding is that the
extension
is pretty much ready to go?) There is understandably considerable interest in the timeframe for installing flagged revisions, I would hope it would be a positive step
to
set some timeframes a bit tighter than 'hopefully by wikimedia' ;-) - is this list an appropriate context for such discusison, and if so
(hopefullly)
- could someone appropriately empowered flesh out the next steps a bit
more,
and maybe try and establish a timetable of sorts? My intention in posting about this every so often is to ensure that such
an
important development doesn't sort of slip through the cracks - I think communication on this matter has to date been ok, but not great - it'll
be
cool to improve it a bit :-) cheers, Peter, PM.
The implementations depend on a per wiki basis depending on consensus, for example, wikinews and a few others such as the German Wikipedia already run it.
The en.wiki is currently also looking at a slightly modified version nicked named "Flagged Protections" which is basically designed to work the same way protection does, articles are only covered by it when protected to a certain level.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Samuel Klein wrote:
I agree this is important, to the projects and to the progress of flagged revs as a concept (which is still one step of a long journey). It is worth a quick thread on f-l for that reason if not for general interest.
I was so taken aback by the conceit that the adoption of one single extension by a single language in a single project might be of interest on a foundation level, that I didn't reply directly, but decided to think hard about whether there is anything at all about flagged revs that might be of foundation level relevance.
I was in fact mildly surprised to find that I could conceive of one such issue. And that issue is what limits should we set on the size of wikipedia projects to whom we will _allow_ setting up of flagged revs. The leading programmer of flagged revs has suggested 100 000 articles in the wikipedia context (smaller sizes ok for instance in wikisource contexts).
But since wikipedia is nearest my heart, that is what I will focus on here.
My thinking suggests that 100 000 should be the hard lower limit; below which size, there would have to be extraordinarily strong and exceptional circumstances where flagged revs could conceivably be allowed. Do bear in mind that flagged revs is labour intensive, and bestows very little benefit in the early stages when emphasis is getting just any content at all up there, and use by readers is not really that intensive, nor is there much media interest yet, nor the general public that involved.
My thinking is that it should be strongly discouraged that flagged revs be used on wikipedias below 250 000 articles, before that size community building and content creation should be key, not worrying about the face the wikipedia presents to the outside world.
But on the other end of the spectrum, on projects like the one I am active on (the Finnish Wikipedia)...
Disruptive behaviour is not wired into our genes or our culture, but quietly coöperative behaviour has been. Our wikipedia is a paradise in comparison to many. For this reason personally I would consider it a great shame if we were to be granted flagged revs before say 750 000 or one million. And even as I say this, I know there are the chance brothers (Fat and Slim) that this devout wish will be observed. I consider it a great problem that solutions for problems larger wikis have are nearly without exception foisted on smaller wikis without much consideration of what their real effect there will be, and are they really ready for it.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
But on the other end of the spectrum, on projects like the one I am active on (the Finnish Wikipedia)...
Disruptive behaviour is not wired into our genes or our culture, but quietly co?perative behaviour has been. Our wikipedia is a paradise in comparison to many. For this reason personally I would consider it a great shame if we were to be granted flagged revs before say 750 000 or one million. And even as I say this, I know there are the chance brothers (Fat and Slim) that this devout wish will be observed. I consider it a great problem that solutions for problems larger wikis have are nearly without exception foisted on smaller wikis without much consideration of what their real effect there will be, and are they really ready for it.
Could you may be motivate your opinion? Are you saying that there are no vandals on fi.wp (which I can buy) and that novices on fi.wp first read the rules and learn them by heart, and only then start creating articles?
Cheers Yaroslav
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
But on the other end of the spectrum, on projects like the one I am active on (the Finnish Wikipedia)...
Disruptive behaviour is not wired into our genes or our culture, but quietly co?perative behaviour has been. Our wikipedia is a paradise in comparison to many. For this reason personally I would consider it a great shame if we were to be granted flagged revs before say 750 000 or one million. And even as I say this, I know there are the chance brothers (Fat and Slim) that this devout wish will be observed. I consider it a great problem that solutions for problems larger wikis have are nearly without exception foisted on smaller wikis without much consideration of what their real effect there will be, and are they really ready for it.
Could you may be motivate your opinion? Are you saying that there are no vandals on fi.wp (which I can buy) and that novices on fi.wp first read the rules and learn them by heart, and only then start creating articles?
No, that is definitely *not* what I am saying. Admins on the Finnish wikipedia have on the occasion had to go to the lengths of blocking whole grammar schools from editing.
What I *am* saying - and I suspect none of my countrymen would dispute me in this - is that in Finland vandals are vastly overrun by people of good faith editing and cleaning after the vandals. So much so that the vandals effect is easily negligible. Negligible over the long term, but also negligible in the moment.
And thus, flaggedrevs would not provide nearly any added disincentive for vandals, but would add workload for the good faith editors, and slow down content production.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
What I *am* saying - and I suspect none of my countrymen would dispute me in this - is that in Finland vandals are vastly overrun by people of good faith editing and cleaning after the vandals. So much so that the vandals effect is easily negligible. Negligible over the long term, but also negligible in the moment.
And thus, flaggedrevs would not provide nearly any added disincentive for vandals, but would add workload for the good faith editors, and slow down content production.
We are running flagged revisions on ru.wp for a year and a half now (250K articles when started, 400K now), and even though the community was pretty much sceptical in the beginning, now only a couple of vocal critics remain. To my experience, the main problem with flagged revisions is not so much vandalism which indeed gets reverted immediately but massive copyright violations. If an anonymous user has introduced a piece of 10K text in an article which has previously been 5K by a single edit this is always a point of concern. Checking whether this text violates copyright can easily take half an hour or more. Checking an old article can take two hours. Introducing flagged revisions one actually avoids the situation when several active editors spend their time for doing the same work.
Cheers Yaroslav
And thus, flaggedrevs would not provide nearly any added disincentive for vandals, but would add workload for the good faith editors, and slow down content production.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
This is not likely to happen. Our experiences on de.WP show that the change in the work process(es) is minimal. Editing is not really different, and it seems that vandalism is not less than before. The extra work (for the first sighting) was done in a couple of months, and combed out some old vandalism and in general made us improving a lot of old articles to meet minimal requirements. But the important thing is: Vandalism (from simple profanity to calls for murder (!) ) does not appear immediately to the readers, and we can keep our wiki principle reducing its negative consequences. Kind regards Ziko
Hi all,
It's been almost a month since the last post in this 'flagged revisions' thread (sincere apologies if I've failed to find discussion which has no doubt been occurring on lists and wikis everywhere!) - I wanted to ask for an update from the folk at the coalface working on getting flagged revisions ready for the english wikipedia.
There's a growing perception over at the english wiki that there is technical programming work still outstanding in order for the flagged revisions extension to be enabled - this is somewhat at odds with my previous understanding that in fact, the code was ready. I think it is becoming rather important for us to be very clear about the status quo.
(for example see jimbo's comments; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Proj... ensuing discussion about whether or not more programmers would be helpful :-)
It would be great from my perspective to answer the following questions;
- Who will 'make the call' to switch flagged revisions on for the english wikipedia - Brion? another developer? foundation staff? - Is there any more technical programming outstanding to complete the extension? - Does the team / person responsible for completing this work feel adequetely resourced? - is there any more the community or foundation can do to expedite?
If foundation staff, and not the technical team, are delaying the activation of this extention, perhaps for PR reasons to co-incide WIkimania and Flagged Revisions, then to a degree I understand - I do however feel that the english community would appreciate this information - in many ways it's a volatile time amongst the en editors ('ain't it always!), so openess and transparency become even more important!
best regards,
Peter, PM.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org