I've been involved in this lengthy circular debate: What should be the autoconfirmed age and article count in the Hebrew Wikipedia? See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T243076 if you curious about this particular one, but I'd love to ask a more global question:
How were these numbers calculated originally?
For the account age, the default is four days, or five or seven days for a few wikis.
For the edit count, the default is zero, but several wikis have 5, 10, 25, or 50.
(See https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php and search for "wgAutoConfirmAge" and "wgAutoConfirmCount".)
Some wikis have groups, usually called "extended confirmed", and with higher counts; for example, 500 edits in English and some other languages (search for wmgAutopromoteOnceonEdit on the same page).
So, how did the people arrive at these numbers? Why is it four days by default? Is it all just intuition and guesses, or was there any research behind it?
Is it *good* that four days is the default for everyone, until someone bothers to update it (most wikis don't)? Or is it just a coincidence that was defined for a certain wiki and applied elsewhere? And when it's updated, why is it updated to one number and not some other?
While I am an ardent supporter of the "anyone can edit" principle, it makes general sense to have some restrictions based on edit count, account age, and perhaps other parameters. But HOW are they calculated? Would it make sense to anyone to start making some calculations around it and optimize the number for wikis of different sizes?
I'd imagine that there could be a calculation that says "in a given wiki, the chance of being reverted or blocked goes down after X days and X edits", and this number is probably different for every wiki (maybe there already is such a calculation somewhere). This could possibly be a starting point for a good calculation of a threshold; it wouldn't be perfect, because in some wikis it can perpetuate community practices which may be biased against new editors, but at least it's based on data and not on guesses.
In the English Wikipedia 2016 discussion[1] about adding the "extended confirmed" group, I found one comment, by User:Opabinia regalis, which corresponds to my thinking on the topic: "The thresholds being used for these restrictions are essentially arbitrary, and we don't have a strong evidence base yet that they are well-chosen."
Perhaps after twenty years we could start actually calculating these thresholds, and not just come up with arbitrary numbers? Or is there really no demand for smart and research-based decisions about these thresholds?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_129...
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
There's no evidence behind the majority of policies of any Wikimedia project, so I don't think that's really an expectation.
As to enwiki, it appears that the 4-day threshold was in place well before 2008, but the 10-edit threshold was added in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed_Proposal/Poll
The related "bugzilla" (now phabricator) ticket is here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T16191
It was pretty clearly the position of Brion, the lead developer at the time, that even making the change from 0 to 10 edits would be essentially inconsequential; however, he did make that change. (Most of that ticket is an argument that the Enwiki community wanted a 7 day/20 edit threshold, and complaining that it wasn't applied.) My sense is that adding the edit requirements actually did make a difference, although not really because it resulted in vandalism/trolling accounts being left unused. It made them easier to spot. I believe they also reduced the move vandalism that we were experiencing at a ridiculous rate at the time.
I'm sure you'd be able to find similar discussions at other projects; I just remember this one because I participated in it.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 06:19, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I've been involved in this lengthy circular debate: What should be the autoconfirmed age and article count in the Hebrew Wikipedia? See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T243076 if you curious about this particular one, but I'd love to ask a more global question:
How were these numbers calculated originally?
For the account age, the default is four days, or five or seven days for a few wikis.
For the edit count, the default is zero, but several wikis have 5, 10, 25, or 50.
(See https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php and search for "wgAutoConfirmAge" and "wgAutoConfirmCount".)
Some wikis have groups, usually called "extended confirmed", and with higher counts; for example, 500 edits in English and some other languages (search for wmgAutopromoteOnceonEdit on the same page).
So, how did the people arrive at these numbers? Why is it four days by default? Is it all just intuition and guesses, or was there any research behind it?
Is it *good* that four days is the default for everyone, until someone bothers to update it (most wikis don't)? Or is it just a coincidence that was defined for a certain wiki and applied elsewhere? And when it's updated, why is it updated to one number and not some other?
While I am an ardent supporter of the "anyone can edit" principle, it makes general sense to have some restrictions based on edit count, account age, and perhaps other parameters. But HOW are they calculated? Would it make sense to anyone to start making some calculations around it and optimize the number for wikis of different sizes?
I'd imagine that there could be a calculation that says "in a given wiki, the chance of being reverted or blocked goes down after X days and X edits", and this number is probably different for every wiki (maybe there already is such a calculation somewhere). This could possibly be a starting point for a good calculation of a threshold; it wouldn't be perfect, because in some wikis it can perpetuate community practices which may be biased against new editors, but at least it's based on data and not on guesses.
In the English Wikipedia 2016 discussion[1] about adding the "extended confirmed" group, I found one comment, by User:Opabinia regalis, which corresponds to my thinking on the topic: "The thresholds being used for these restrictions are essentially arbitrary, and we don't have a strong evidence base yet that they are well-chosen."
Perhaps after twenty years we could start actually calculating these thresholds, and not just come up with arbitrary numbers? Or is there really no demand for smart and research-based decisions about these thresholds?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_129...
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
As a long-time cross-platform user, I have been checking user rights for years. These flag systems have strong differences among platforms.
They originate from lack of perspective, sometimes.. some long-time users have no interest in analyzing them, there is a lack of literacy about flag systems that is quite critical due to language barrier or limited interest in metrics. Such users often do not grasp differences of similar names in different scenarios. I have witnessed long-time users who "dominate" many of these local discussions mixing up concepts... when you have no strong clue how validation of whole page version, single edit or users' edit actually work, or can work... and how different or specific namespaces can also exist with different protection rights, you just follow some long-term local "prejudice" that are more or less different among platforms. Or simply, that some very active users like or dislike.
Personally, I am in favor of a standard universal autoconfirmed flag and more flexible project-oriented autopatrolled flag (that is, mostly manually given) or "extended autoconfirmed" flag (that is, mostly based on automatic metrics) adapted to a specific platform. Please notice how I am trying to use reasonable definitions from different local scenarios, but they are not really defined anywhere IMHO.
For the universal autoconfirmed flag, the 4 days and 10 edits threshold are IMHO correct for a "limbo" before getting some basic user right. it's practical to have them always like that by default. I enter with the SUL system with my account on a new platform, and by default I know to get that metric for some basic functionalities. 4 days is "a little bit more than a week end" or "half a week" for example, not too long or not too short. A. Il lunedì 4 ottobre 2021, 18:11:03 CEST, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com ha scritto:
There's no evidence behind the majority of policies of any Wikimedia project, so I don't think that's really an expectation.
As to enwiki, it appears that the 4-day threshold was in place well before 2008, but the 10-edit threshold was added in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed_Proposal/Poll
The related "bugzilla" (now phabricator) ticket is here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T16191
It was pretty clearly the position of Brion, the lead developer at the time, that even making the change from 0 to 10 edits would be essentially inconsequential; however, he did make that change. (Most of that ticket is an argument that the Enwiki community wanted a 7 day/20 edit threshold, and complaining that it wasn't applied.) My sense is that adding the edit requirements actually did make a difference, although not really because it resulted in vandalism/trolling accounts being left unused. It made them easier to spot. I believe they also reduced the move vandalism that we were experiencing at a ridiculous rate at the time.
I'm sure you'd be able to find similar discussions at other projects; I just remember this one because I participated in it. Risker/Anne
On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 06:19, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I've been involved in this lengthy circular debate: What should be the autoconfirmed age and article count in the Hebrew Wikipedia? See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T243076 if you curious about this particular one, but I'd love to ask a more global question: How were these numbers calculated originally? For the account age, the default is four days, or five or seven days for a few wikis.
For the edit count, the default is zero, but several wikis have 5, 10, 25, or 50.
(See https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php and search for "wgAutoConfirmAge" and "wgAutoConfirmCount".) Some wikis have groups, usually called "extended confirmed", and with higher counts; for example, 500 edits in English and some other languages (search for wmgAutopromoteOnceonEdit on the same page). So, how did the people arrive at these numbers? Why is it four days by default? Is it all just intuition and guesses, or was there any research behind it? Is it *good* that four days is the default for everyone, until someone bothers to update it (most wikis don't)? Or is it just a coincidence that was defined for a certain wiki and applied elsewhere? And when it's updated, why is it updated to one number and not some other?
While I am an ardent supporter of the "anyone can edit" principle, it makes general sense to have some restrictions based on edit count, account age, and perhaps other parameters. But HOW are they calculated? Would it make sense to anyone to start making some calculations around it and optimize the number for wikis of different sizes? I'd imagine that there could be a calculation that says "in a given wiki, the chance of being reverted or blocked goes down after X days and X edits", and this number is probably different for every wiki (maybe there already is such a calculation somewhere). This could possibly be a starting point for a good calculation of a threshold; it wouldn't be perfect, because in some wikis it can perpetuate community practices which may be biased against new editors, but at least it's based on data and not on guesses.
In the English Wikipedia 2016 discussion[1] about adding the "extended confirmed" group, I found one comment, by User:Opabinia regalis, which corresponds to my thinking on the topic: "The thresholds being used for these restrictions are essentially arbitrary, and we don't have a strong evidence base yet that they are well-chosen." Perhaps after twenty years we could start actually calculating these thresholds, and not just come up with arbitrary numbers? Or is there really no demand for smart and research-based decisions about these thresholds? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_129... -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
The question as phrased at the beginning of this thread is inaccurate.
The discussion at phabricator is *not* about "What should be the autoconfirmed age and article count in the Hebrew Wikipedia". The request there is twofold:
1. To create in Hebrew Wikipedia an "extendedconfirmed" group, the same way it exists in English Wikipedia (and others). 2. To have the "move" and "editsemiprotected" permissions transfer from the "autoconfirmed" group to the "extendedconfirmed" group.
No one is asking there to change the threshold for the "autoconfirmed" group.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org