FlaggedRevs is now actually live on de.wikipedia.org :-). Congratulations and many thanks to _everyone_ involved in getting us to this point. 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. In the German Wikipedia configuration, unregistered users will always see the most recent version that has been checked for vandalism, if any such version is available.
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! Kudos to the de.wp community for its pioneering role in this important experiment. As a reminder to other wiki communities, the extension can still be tested in the Wikimedia Labs at:
Since the FlaggedRevs extension can be very flexibly configured, it will be up to individual communities to determine what the best roll-out strategy is. From our point of view, it's best if communities self-organize to make decisions around the use, and that they file requests through
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
which point to a decision on their community to enable the extension. But, in the least intrusive possible configuration, FlaggedRevs is essentially a very powerful change patrolling tool, and I could see us phasing it in like any other new feature.
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
FlaggedRevs is now actually live on de.wikipedia.org :-). Congratulations and many thanks to _everyone_ involved in getting us to this point. 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. In the German Wikipedia configuration, unregistered users will always see the most recent version that has been checked for vandalism, if any such version is available.
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! Kudos to the de.wp community for its pioneering role in this important experiment. As a reminder to other wiki communities, the extension can still be tested in the Wikimedia Labs at:
Since the FlaggedRevs extension can be very flexibly configured, it will be up to individual communities to determine what the best roll-out strategy is. From our point of view, it's best if communities self-organize to make decisions around the use, and that they file requests through
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
which point to a decision on their community to enable the extension. But, in the least intrusive possible configuration, FlaggedRevs is essentially a very powerful change patrolling tool, and I could see us phasing it in like any other new feature. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Thank you Erik for this update. This is indeed good news. :-)
Sydney
Are there any specific articles on de.wikipedia that are a good example where the extension is in use?
-- Hay / Husky
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:54 PM, FloNight sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
FlaggedRevs is now actually live on de.wikipedia.org :-). Congratulations and many thanks to _everyone_ involved in getting us to this point. 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. In the German Wikipedia configuration, unregistered users will always see the most recent version that has been checked for vandalism, if any such version is available.
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! Kudos to the de.wp community for its pioneering role in this important experiment. As a reminder to other wiki communities, the extension can still be tested in the Wikimedia Labs at:
Since the FlaggedRevs extension can be very flexibly configured, it will be up to individual communities to determine what the best roll-out strategy is. From our point of view, it's best if communities self-organize to make decisions around the use, and that they file requests through
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
which point to a decision on their community to enable the extension. But, in the least intrusive possible configuration, FlaggedRevs is essentially a very powerful change patrolling tool, and I could see us phasing it in like any other new feature. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Thank you Erik for this update. This is indeed good news. :-)
Sydney
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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?
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
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?
Yes, I certainly would support removing as much protection/locking as possible from articles where a flagged revision is presented as the default.
--Michael Snow
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
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?
Yes, I certainly would support removing as much protection/locking as possible from articles where a flagged revision is presented as the default.
I think Lars calls FlaggedRevs "soft locking" and doesn't want to apply it on a large scale.
IMHO FlaggedRevs are much different from protection/locking. The purpose of FlaggedRevs is to present the uninitiated audience with a vandalism-free Wikipedia. Applying FlaggedRevs to only a few pages will not achieve that.
Magnus
2008/5/8 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
I think Lars calls FlaggedRevs "soft locking" and doesn't want to apply it on a large scale.
IMHO FlaggedRevs are much different from protection/locking. The purpose of FlaggedRevs is to present the uninitiated audience with a vandalism-free Wikipedia. Applying FlaggedRevs to only a few pages will not achieve that.
I think Lars' worry is (partly) a matter of update rates leading to locking-through-inertia.
Yes, we can purge through all existing pages and set a flag on them - indeed, it's an excellent opportunity to do so, and it means that hopefully all pages will get eyeballed to make them clean.
But! What happens next? If I go off and update a short article (one which no-one has watchlisted, etc) on de.wp, what mechanism is in place to flag *that* revision? Is it possible that on non-high-traffic pages, an "old" revision could remain the newest flagged one for weeks, months, despite having been superceded?
I can see how this would have the effect of soft-locking - I'd really like to know how we plan to get round it.
Automatically generated reports of all pages with the most recent edit "unflagged", sorted by age, perhaps? This'd allow the permitted users to knock off a few each a day, keep it churning over. The sort of thing that would appeal to inveterate RC patrollers ;-)
Maybe a weird suggestion, but you could of course look at the Dutch Wikipedia how they are doing things. As you might recall, nlwikipedia is one of the few, and at least the largest Wikimedia projects using MarkAsPatrolled. Which is, to some extent, similar (also about flagging, but not so much versions, but changes). There are a few systems and tools in use that might appear to be handy in dewiki as well.
BR, Lodewijk
2008/5/8, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
2008/5/8 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
I think Lars calls FlaggedRevs "soft locking" and doesn't want to apply it on a large scale.
IMHO FlaggedRevs are much different from protection/locking. The purpose of FlaggedRevs is to present the uninitiated audience with a vandalism-free Wikipedia. Applying FlaggedRevs to only a few pages will not achieve that.
I think Lars' worry is (partly) a matter of update rates leading to locking-through-inertia.
Yes, we can purge through all existing pages and set a flag on them - indeed, it's an excellent opportunity to do so, and it means that hopefully all pages will get eyeballed to make them clean.
But! What happens next? If I go off and update a short article (one which no-one has watchlisted, etc) on de.wp, what mechanism is in place to flag *that* revision? Is it possible that on non-high-traffic pages, an "old" revision could remain the newest flagged one for weeks, months, despite having been superceded?
I can see how this would have the effect of soft-locking - I'd really like to know how we plan to get round it.
Automatically generated reports of all pages with the most recent edit "unflagged", sorted by age, perhaps? This'd allow the permitted users to knock off a few each a day, keep it churning over. The sort of thing that would appeal to inveterate RC patrollers ;-)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/8 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
I think Lars calls FlaggedRevs "soft locking" and doesn't want to apply it on a large scale.
IMHO FlaggedRevs are much different from protection/locking. The purpose of FlaggedRevs is to present the uninitiated audience with a vandalism-free Wikipedia. Applying FlaggedRevs to only a few pages will not achieve that.
I think Lars' worry is (partly) a matter of update rates leading to locking-through-inertia.
Yes, we can purge through all existing pages and set a flag on them - indeed, it's an excellent opportunity to do so, and it means that hopefully all pages will get eyeballed to make them clean.
But! What happens next? If I go off and update a short article (one which no-one has watchlisted, etc) on de.wp, what mechanism is in place to flag *that* revision? Is it possible that on non-high-traffic pages, an "old" revision could remain the newest flagged one for weeks, months, despite having been superceded?
I can see how this would have the effect of soft-locking - I'd really like to know how we plan to get round it.
A flagged page that is edited by a "trusted" user (that is, one who can flag pages) is flagged by default. Given the (potentially) huge number of such users, many pages will have flags updated as a by-product of normal editing.
Automatically generated reports of all pages with the most recent edit "unflagged", sorted by age, perhaps? This'd allow the permitted users to knock off a few each a day, keep it churning over. The sort of thing that would appeal to inveterate RC patrollers ;-)
There are a number of special pages for these purposes. There's one that lists pages with no flagged version; you can even filter by category! I think I saw a "sort-by-oldest-flag" page as well.
Of course, the potential for views on this would increase exponentially once such info is available through the API. Maybe I should write a toolserver interface until then. Are the respective tables/fields replicated to the toolserver?
Magnus
2008/5/8 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
I can see how this would have the effect of soft-locking - I'd really like to know how we plan to get round it.
A flagged page that is edited by a "trusted" user (that is, one who can flag pages) is flagged by default. Given the (potentially) huge number of such users, many pages will have flags updated as a by-product of normal editing.
Excellent. How is trusted status allocated? Is it a positive decision to set the flag, or a sort of "super-autoconfirmed" status that gets doled out based on X many edits over Y time period?
One other question: if a revision is flagged in error, can the flag be removed?
Automatically generated reports of all pages with the most recent edit "unflagged", sorted by age, perhaps? This'd allow the permitted users to knock off a few each a day, keep it churning over. The sort of thing that would appeal to inveterate RC patrollers ;-)
There are a number of special pages for these purposes. There's one that lists pages with no flagged version; you can even filter by category!
Magnus, you're wonderful :-)
I think I saw a "sort-by-oldest-flag" page as well.
This would seem to be the most critical one - a new revision unflagged for a week is a lot more annoying than one unflagged for fifteen minutes, especially if the user who contributed it is wondering why it isn't showing up...
[Sorry for all the stupid questions, but those of us with nicht sprechen Deutsche can't play around with it very easily to answer them ourselves...]
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
[Sorry for all the stupid questions, but those of us with nicht sprechen Deutsche can't play around with it very easily to answer them ourselves...]
You can actually, see http://en.labs.wikimedia.org
Andrew Gray wrote:
Excellent. How is trusted status allocated? Is it a positive decision to set the flag, or a sort of "super-autoconfirmed" status that gets doled out based on X many edits over Y time period?
So far the right can be given (and taken) by admins. Some sort of "super-autoconfirmed" status was active for a while but we (don't ask me who exactly) asked to inactivate that due to numerous complaints because the limitation was rather low (30 edits + 30 days + some minor stuff AFAIR). At the moment (the more or less) consensus is 200 edits (in main space) and 2 month, that are all users who have the right to vote in RFAs, so it is at least easy to check cause we have s script for that. But that limit might change since we have a lot of discussion going on about that on numerous pages and it is really hard to get an overview. I think it is almost impossible to go more into detail without spreading rumors. The 200/2 limit is what admins use at the moment so it might be safe to say that this would be the upper limit.
Maybe it would be a good idea to give it and the German community some time (at least a week or two) and see how things work, please be patient. Flagged revs won't chance the wiki world instantaneously ;-)
Regards, Sven
2008/5/7 Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.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?"
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org