Hiho,
there have been some significant developments on de-WP, which I would like to share with this list.
On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one sighted revision. Since then, only pages newly created by noneditors have to be looked at. On average, around 1.000 pages were marked for the first time per day and these are now carried over to looking at edits that have to be flagged. This means that since February 4th, the number of pages with revisions awaiting review has dropped from almost 13.000 to 5.000 (see http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=german&action=imag... last picture). More importantly, the maximal waiting time for edits to be reviewed has dropped from 16 days to less than 7 now, which means that finally, we are now in an acceptable regime. The goal is, to reduce this time until tuesday to 5 days (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gesichtete_Versionen/Nachsichtung). The median waiting time for edits until review is still within hours.
Still on the list of things to do is making the criterias for a sighted version more precise from "has been looked at by an experienced editor and is without vandalism."
Best,
Philipp
2009/2/15 P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com:
On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one sighted revision. Since then, only pages newly created by noneditors have to be looked at. On average, around 1.000 pages were marked for the first time per day and these are now carried over to looking at edits that have to be flagged. This means that since February 4th, the number of pages with revisions awaiting review has dropped from almost 13.000 to 5.000 (see http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=german&action=imag... last picture). More importantly, the maximal waiting time for edits to be reviewed has dropped from 16 days to less than 7 now, which means that finally, we are now in an acceptable regime. The goal is, to reduce this time until tuesday to 5 days (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gesichtete_Versionen/Nachsichtung). The median waiting time for edits until review is still within hours.
This is fantastic news! Congratulations to the German Wikipedia. Hopefully this will allay some of the fears of English Wikipedians.
2009/2/15 P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com:
Hiho,
there have been some significant developments on de-WP, which I would like to share with this list.
On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one sighted revision. Since then, only pages newly created by noneditors have to be looked at.
So IPs can create articles on de?
2009/2/15 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/2/15 P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com:
Hiho,
there have been some significant developments on de-WP, which I would like to share with this list.
On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one sighted revision. Since then, only pages newly created by noneditors have to be looked at.
So IPs can create articles on de?
I expect "Editor" is their name (or a translation thereof) for people with the relevant review permission. I don't know if anons can create articles or not, but it can't be inferred from that statement.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:33 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/15 P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com:
Hiho,
there have been some significant developments on de-WP, which I would like to share with this list.
On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one sighted revision. Since then, only pages newly created by noneditors have to be looked at.
So IPs can create articles on de?
Yes, I think this is switched off on en: only.
Andre Engels wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:33 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/15 P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com:
Hiho,
there have been some significant developments on de-WP, which I would like to share with this list.
On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one sighted revision. Since then, only pages newly created by noneditors have to be looked at.
So IPs can create articles on de?
Yes, I think this is switched off on en: only.
That's something I've wanted to see change for a long time.
--Michael Snow
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
So IPs can create articles on de?
Yes, I think this is switched off on en: only.
That's something I've wanted to see change for a long time.
In which direction?
The direction of (once again) allowing anonymous page creation on English Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure he means.
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.comragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
So IPs can create articles on de?
Yes, I think this is switched off on en: only.
That's something I've wanted to see change for a long time.
In which direction?
The direction of (once again) allowing anonymous page creation on English Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure he means.
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I certainly hope that the flow is the other way. The amount of damage that IP editors and non auto-confirmed accounts are doing on en:WP definitely recommends against it. I was thinking about proposing that the move-article command (as well as replacing an article with a redirect), be disabled for IP addresses and non auto-confirmed accounts.
David
2009/2/16 David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com:
I certainly hope that the flow is the other way. The amount of damage that IP editors and non auto-confirmed accounts are doing on en:WP definitely recommends against it. I was thinking about proposing that the move-article command (as well as replacing an article with a redirect), be disabled for IP addresses and non auto-confirmed accounts.
I thought it was already, did it change?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/16 David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com:
I certainly hope that the flow is the other way. The amount of damage
that
IP editors and non auto-confirmed accounts are doing on en:WP definitely recommends against it. I was thinking about proposing that the
move-article
command (as well as replacing an article with a redirect), be disabled
for
IP addresses and non auto-confirmed accounts.
I thought it was already, did it change?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
From what I'm seeing, at least the #redirect part needs to be disabled (See
the constant attacks on en-WP, ANI board for examples).
As for the other part of it I'm decently sure that unless move-protect is set on a page, that anyone can move it.
David
2009/2/16 David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com:
As for the other part of it I'm decently sure that unless move-protect is set on a page, that anyone can move it.
Oh, yeah, we have explicit semi-move-protection, so it must be possible normally. I'm sure it used to be restricted... probably several years ago now, though!
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/16 David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com:
As for the other part of it I'm decently sure that unless move-protect is set on a page, that anyone can move it.
Oh, yeah, we have explicit semi-move-protection, so it must be possible normally. I'm sure it used to be restricted... probably several years ago now, though!
No, IPs and new editors are still not allowed to move pages on enwiki. In effect, all pages are semi-move-protected (since you have to be autoconfirmed to even have the move option), which makes the semi-move-protection option entirely redundant. However, the requirements for being autoconfirmed are quite low so it doesn't stop much.
-Robert Rohde
Sage Ross wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
So IPs can create articles on de?
Yes, I think this is switched off on en: only.
That's something I've wanted to see change for a long time.
In which direction?
The direction of (once again) allowing anonymous page creation on English Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure he means.
Yes, Sage reads me right.
I understand the concerns that have been mentioned about vandalism, but that's why I mention it in the context of flagged revisions. We operate on a fundamental premise that anyone should be able to edit. Sometimes checks and filters are appropriate to help prevent harm, but I think we should focus on those that don't completely disable some people's editing ability.
--Michael Snow
Creation of new articles by IPs was never disabled on de-WP. However, the number of articles coming is has been steady for years now with about 1.500, of which around 1.000 are speedy deleted, so an overall net growth of slightly less than 500 per day.
Otherwise, we are were indeed able to come down to a maximal waiting time of 5 days and will try to keep it there or even lower.
Best,
Philipp
Listening to Wikipedia Weekly (71) and reading the discussions on en.WP and nl.WP about implementation, it strucks me how inaccurate the discussions are. I do not know what is the reason for it, a poor presentation in the first place, a confusing terminology, hidden ideological motives... It is difficult to discuss something when people claim that it would take "ages" until an article is sighted, that people are prevented from creating articles, talk about the sighting of "autoconfirmed people" (has nothing to do with that). With my mentees in de.WP I never experienced that someone complained about the sighting process, the newbies took it as something normal and asked me friendly to do the sighting (often it was already done by someone else). Of course, if someone creates an article about a less interesting subject, it can take some days or even one, two weeks until sighting, but I don't see the tragic of that. Kind regards Ziko
2009/2/19 P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com
Creation of new articles by IPs was never disabled on de-WP. However, the number of articles coming is has been steady for years now with about 1.500, of which around 1.000 are speedy deleted, so an overall net growth of slightly less than 500 per day.
Otherwise, we are were indeed able to come down to a maximal waiting time of 5 days and will try to keep it there or even lower.
Best,
Philipp
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org