CC'd this to Foundation-l.
There is a poll currently on the English Wikipedia to implement a version of FlaggedRevisions. The poll was introduced left into the vacuum which remained after the first poll failed to result in concrete action. At the close of poll #1, Jimmy indicated that he thought it had passed and should result in an FR implementation. When he received some protest, he announced that he would shortly unveil a new compromise proposal.
While I'm sure he had the best of intentions, this proposal hasn't materialized and the result has been limbo. Into the limbo rides another proposal, this one masquerading as the hoped for compromise. Unfortunately, it isn't - at least, not in the sense that it is a middle ground between those who want FR implemented and those who oppose it. What it does do is compromise, as in fundamentally weaken, the concept of FR and the effort to improve our handling of BLPs.
The proposed implementation introduces all the bureaucracy and effort of FlaggedRevisions, with few of the benefits. FlaggedProtection, similar to semi-protection, can be placed on any article. In some instances, FlaggedProtection is identical to normal full protection - only, it still allows edit wars on unsighted versions (woohoo). Patrolled revisions are passive - you can patrol them, but doing so won't impact what the general reader will see. It gives us the huge and useless backlog which is exactly what we should not want, and exactly what the opposition has predicted. The only likely result is that inertia will prevent any further FR implementation, and we'll be stuck with a substitute that grants no real benefit.
What I would like to see, and what I have been hoping to see, is either implementation of the prior proposal (taking a form similar to that used by de.wp) or actual proposal of a true compromise version. The current poll asks us to just give up.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
CC'd this to Foundation-l.
There is a poll currently on the English Wikipedia to implement a version of FlaggedRevisions. The poll was introduced left into the vacuum which remained after the first poll failed to result in concrete action. At the close of poll #1, Jimmy indicated that he thought it had passed and should result in an FR implementation. When he received some protest, he announced that he would shortly unveil a new compromise proposal.
While I'm sure he had the best of intentions, this proposal hasn't materialized and the result has been limbo. Into the limbo rides another proposal, this one masquerading as the hoped for compromise. Unfortunately, it isn't - at least, not in the sense that it is a middle ground between those who want FR implemented and those who oppose it. What it does do is compromise, as in fundamentally weaken, the concept of FR and the effort to improve our handling of BLPs.
The proposed implementation introduces all the bureaucracy and effort of FlaggedRevisions, with few of the benefits. FlaggedProtection, similar to semi-protection, can be placed on any article. In some instances, FlaggedProtection is identical to normal full protection - only, it still allows edit wars on unsighted versions (woohoo). Patrolled revisions are passive - you can patrol them, but doing so won't impact what the general reader will see. It gives us the huge and useless backlog which is exactly what we should not want, and exactly what the opposition has predicted. The only likely result is that inertia will prevent any further FR implementation, and we'll be stuck with a substitute that grants no real benefit.
What I would like to see, and what I have been hoping to see, is either implementation of the prior proposal (taking a form similar to that used by de.wp) or actual proposal of a true compromise version. The current poll asks us to just give up.
How is it not a compromise? Its a version that most of the supporters still support and that many of the opposers now support. Compromise involves both sides making concessions, not repeatedly proposing the same thing in hopes of a different outcome. So far it has far more community support than the previous proposed version (which had what? 60% support?).
I'm getting really mad at the people opposing every version of FlaggedRevs that doesn't provide some ultimate level of protection for BLPs. If you want something that helps BLPs, PROPOSE SOMETHING! Sitting around and opposing everything in favor of some non-existent system is unhelpful and basically saying that articles are worthless unless they are BLPs. The proposed system can potentially help some articles, while this un-proposed system that will be a magic bullet for the BLP problem currently helps nothing, because it doesn't exist.
I agree that patrolled revisions have a high likelihood of failing. Its too bad we aren't proposing to use it as a trial instead, so if they don't work, we can come up with a different system. Oh, wait...
If FlaggedProtection results in a manageable system, then we can consider expanding it to more articles than the current policy would allow. Enwiki is big and slow; expecting it to do some massive, visible change over hundreds of thousands of articles all at once is rather unrealistic. Several months ago, I told Erik on this list that enwiki would never be able to get consensus for FR, it looks like I'm wrong about that. Perhaps there's some hope left after all.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
How is it not a compromise? Its a version that most of the supporters still support and that many of the opposers now support. Compromise involves both sides making concessions, not repeatedly proposing the same thing in hopes of a different outcome. So far it has far more community support than the previous proposed version (which had what? 60% support?).
I'm getting really mad at the people opposing every version of FlaggedRevs that doesn't provide some ultimate level of protection for BLPs. If you want something that helps BLPs, PROPOSE SOMETHING! Sitting around and opposing everything in favor of some non-existent system is unhelpful and basically saying that articles are worthless unless they are BLPs. The proposed system can potentially help some articles, while this un-proposed system that will be a magic bullet for the BLP problem currently helps nothing, because it doesn't exist.
I agree that patrolled revisions have a high likelihood of failing. Its too bad we aren't proposing to use it as a trial instead, so if they don't work, we can come up with a different system. Oh, wait...
If FlaggedProtection results in a manageable system, then we can consider expanding it to more articles than the current policy would allow. Enwiki is big and slow; expecting it to do some massive, visible change over hundreds of thousands of articles all at once is rather unrealistic. Several months ago, I told Erik on this list that enwiki would never be able to get consensus for FR, it looks like I'm wrong about that. Perhaps there's some hope left after all.
What you're mostly seeing is people who supported the last poll agreeing because anything is better than nothing, and some people who opposed the last poll supporting because this one clearly has no teeth.
More importantly, the most obvious thing this poll has demonstrated so far is that it has not been widely discussed or publicized. To go from discussion to closing the poll in a couple of weeks, where only the last couple of days see a watchlist notice, is more than a bit ridiculous.
I'm far from being a serial opposer of FR or proposals to improve protection of BLPs. I supported the last poll. If this poll simply didn't go far enough, but had some improvement built in, then I'd support it. But implementing patrolled revisions particularly, and the flawed conception of flagged protection, is not just a very minor improvement but in fact counterproductive. The drudgework, minus any benefit, will actively turn people against FlaggedRevisions in its useful form.
So its not a compromise because it guts FR's value and its intended impact on BLPs, without addressing any of the concerns related to bureaucracy or backlogs that opposers have raised.
Necessarily this conversation is taking place on two lists, so if anyone feels like they are missing part of it you might check WikiEn-l for the rest.
Nathan
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ruwrote:
CC'd this to Foundation-l.
Would you mind adding links to the former and present dsiscussions? Not all of us are en.wp discussion regulars.
Thanks Cheers Yaroslav
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled... 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled... 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Trial 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Update_on_BLP_.2F_Flagged... 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_45#Action_needed_... 7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_44#Why_I_am_askin... 8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions
I'm sure there are dozens more major discussions archived in various places.
Nathan
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org