This morning I went through the entire edit history of the article and made sure every contributor had a welcome template. So sue me for grand spamming :)

Brian.

-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Florence Devouard Sent: 29 October 2007 14:44 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia NL

Florence Devouard wrote:

Brian McNeil wrote:

...

Get your press cards out now, it is time to report on the Wikimedia Netherlands conference.

The Wikinews article I have started on the topic can be found at the following url:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Netherlands%2C_2007_conference

Board and ex-board people can contribute (please do!) I'm looking for the people who attended the talks I didn't to flesh the article out.

Any feedback on what I've written so far would also be appreciated.

Brian.

Well, here is my feedback

After the conference, on irc, you asked me to not hesitate to improve the article which existed at that time. So, I went to the article, and fixed various sentences. I also added the link to the place where the video could be downloaded.

My fixes were not huge, but I believe they represented better what happened this day. I believe they were helpful and improving the article.

However, I made a "mistake" (apparently).

MY EDITS WERE ANONYMOUS !!!

So, they were reverted; The fact they were improving the article apparently was a detail. The fact they were anonymous was not a detail. It was considered vandalism since reverted with no explanation on the talk page and no attempt to discuss with the anon ip and not even a comment in the comment box.

Saying that I am disappointed by this would be an understatement. My small improvement to your (otherwise appreciated) article is for me a statement of failure.

Ant

Oh, and ... I'll add. My anon talk page received a welcome template. Maybe I am wrong, but, if I had been a real newbie, I would find very odd to be welcomed by the local team, but be entirely reverted with not even a beginning of explanation. I would definitly wonder if I am really welcome and what I did wrong to be reverted.

Ant

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brian McNeil wrote:

I have forwarded this on to the entire cadre of accredited reporters. As I'm sure you understand I'm not particularly happy that edits were reverted which were constructive.

One of the prepared questions for Brion's Wikinews interview is basically "How far off is SUL?"

SUL might be one answer. But only one answer. When I am travelling, if I am not on my computer, I usually do not log in anyway. There is even less chance that I loggued in later on when SUL is up. Right now, I use a different set of passwords for the "public" wikis (such as english or french wikipedia) than for the private wikis (such as the board wiki. Once SUL, I presume I will have the same wiki everywhere, which will make the risk of forgetting to log out even more critical.

Yes, this would fix it. It is not however, a

substitute for people working on-wiki correctly. On Wikinews I strive to help people learn from their mistakes and become better contributors or administrators. Sometimes it is very difficult to tell someone they have made a mistake, but with the right words you usually get an apology.

I'm sure you've probably brushed it off as "stuff happens" - or whatever the French equivalent is, but I believe what you have reported should not have happened.

Stuff happens and I brushed it just fine :-) I do not need an apology, that's not the point. It was not personal. But it should not happen.

ant

Brian.

-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Florence Devouard Sent: 29 October 2007 14:39 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia NL

Brian McNeil wrote:

...

Get your press cards out now, it is time to report on the Wikimedia Netherlands conference.

The Wikinews article I have started on the topic can be found at the following url:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Netherlands%2C_2007_conference

Board and ex-board people can contribute (please do!) I'm looking for the people who attended the talks I didn't to flesh the article out.

Any feedback on what I've written so far would also be appreciated.

Brian.

Well, here is my feedback

After the conference, on irc, you asked me to not hesitate to improve the article which existed at that time. So, I went to the article, and fixed various sentences. I also added the link to the place where the video could be downloaded.

My fixes were not huge, but I believe they represented better what happened this day. I believe they were helpful and improving the article.

However, I made a "mistake" (apparently).

MY EDITS WERE ANONYMOUS !!!

So, they were reverted; The fact they were improving the article apparently was a detail. The fact they were anonymous was not a detail. It was considered vandalism since reverted with no explanation on the talk page and no attempt to discuss with the anon ip and not even a comment in the comment box.

Saying that I am disappointed by this would be an understatement. My small improvement to your (otherwise appreciated) article is for me a statement of failure.

Ant

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere,

Are you contributor 82.161.154.210? That was chopped by another attendee who is not a Wikinews regular.

Brian

-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Florence Devouard Sent: 29 October 2007 14:39 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia NL

Brian McNeil wrote:

Get your press cards out now, it is time to report on the Wikimedia Netherlands conference.

The Wikinews article I have started on the topic can be found at the following url:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Netherlands%2C_2007_conference

Board and ex-board people can contribute (please do!) I'm looking for the people who attended the talks I didn't to flesh the article out.

Any feedback on what I've written so far would also be appreciated.

Brian.

Well, here is my feedback

After the conference, on irc, you asked me to not hesitate to improve the article which existed at that time. So, I went to the article, and fixed various sentences. I also added the link to the place where the video could be downloaded.

My fixes were not huge, but I believe they represented better what happened this day. I believe they were helpful and improving the article.

However, I made a "mistake" (apparently).

MY EDITS WERE ANONYMOUS !!!

So, they were reverted; The fact they were improving the article apparently was a detail. The fact they were anonymous was not a detail. It was considered vandalism since reverted with no explanation on the talk page and no attempt to discuss with the anon ip and not even a comment in the comment box.

Saying that I am disappointed by this would be an understatement. My small improvement to your (otherwise appreciated) article is for me a statement of failure.

Ant

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2007/10/29, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:

I have two questions regarding the way the flag system operates. I understood that the germans were testing it right now, and had chosen by default the situation where anonymous editors see only the flagged version (rather than the current version).

Well, that would be great, but actually not even the betatest has started.

What happens when an anonymous edits an article ? First, when he comes and visit, he sees that there is a mistake or that he might add content. So, he clicks on the edit button.

My first question here is

• is there anything special planned from a social perspective, to

explain to the anon editor that what he seems is not what he gets (the editing version might be different from the version he just visited) ?

Currently the edit button in that case is labeled differently, namely "edit draft". It is one of the goals of the betatest to adress, improve and solve these usability questions.

Then, let's imagine that he improves substantially the content. Click on save (still as an anonymous editor). Now, my second question is

• after he saved, which version does he see (as an anon), the current

version (the one he just edited) or the flaggued version ?

He is returned to the newly created version, see this post by Aaron on WikiQuality (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/2007-October/000339.html).

Bye,

Philipp

Florence Devouard wrote:

I have two questions regarding the way the flag system operates. I understood that the germans were testing it right now, and had chosen by default the situation where anonymous editors see only the flagged version (rather than the current version).

The test in the German WP has not started yet and so far there is no fixed date for it to go live.

What happens when an anonymous edits an article ? First, when he comes and visit, he sees that there is a mistake or that he might add content. So, he clicks on the edit button.

First point: There won't be an edit button in a flagged version! The button in the usual place will say something like "there may be one or more newer, yet unchecked versions". Only by clicking on that button the anon will get the latest version (that may or may be not identical to the flagged version) and the edit button.

My first question here is

• is there anything special planned from a social perspective, to

explain to the anon editor that what he seems is not what he gets (the editing version might be different from the version he just visited) ?

Yes, see above.

Then, let's imagine that he improves substantially the content. Click on save (still as an anonymous editor). Now, my second question is

• after he saved, which version does he see (as an anon), the current

version (the one he just edited) or the flaggued version ?

From my understanding: As he can use the edit button only in the mode that shows the latest version, he will see his version. But anyone else will still see the flagged version.

hth

Henning

On 10/29/07, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:

Florence Devouard wrote:

...

What happens when an anonymous edits an article ? First, when he comes and visit, he sees that there is a mistake or that he might add content. So, he clicks on the edit button.

First point: There won't be an edit button in a flagged version! The button in the usual place will say something like "there may be one or more newer, yet unchecked versions". Only by clicking on that button the anon will get the latest version (that may or may be not identical to the flagged version) and the edit button.

Is that for performance reasons, or is it supposed to be a feature?

On 30/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:

On Oct 30, 2007 9:07 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:

...

...

First point: There won't be an edit button in a flagged version! The button in the usual place will say something like "there may be one or more newer, yet unchecked versions". Only by clicking on that button the anon will get the latest version (that may or may be not identical to the flagged version) and the edit button.

Is that for performance reasons, or is it supposed to be a feature?

It's intended to be a feature, I think. But I regard it as more of a misfeature. I'd prefer all the edit links to be preserved, but pressing one should take you to a diff+edit screen like you get on edit conflict which would show you the difference between the version you were looking at and the version you will be editing.

I think that this would be a very good method of dealing with the interface in a way that is easy to understand.

Removal of the edit buttons is a blow to the increase in openness flagging should offer.

Absolutely.

The only major technical complication I see with keeping the edit buttons is that it's not clear how section editing should work. What do you do if the sections have changed?

Same as above (diff and edit-box), but just for the single section?

For edit conflicts we currently punt on section editing, which is one of the things I find more annoying about section editing.

Yes, the behaviour of section-editing edit-conflicts is sub-optimal, but cannot easily be avoided, IMO.

Yours,

The only major technical complication I see with keeping the edit buttons is that it's not clear how section editing should work. What do you do if the sections have changed?

Just as when you've viewing an old revision now, the section edit links will just have to not appear. I don't think there is an alternative without significant changes on the backend.