What I want, when I request an article to be transmitted from the PediaWiki database to my computer screen, is an article created, last-edited, or certified by my choice of: * a user with sysop or above authority (41 sysops, 3 developers, 1 owner = 45 people, i.e., the "cabal") * a signed-in user who is on my "trusted" list
I would also like the option of being informed of the existence of contributions from any of: * anonymous users (i.e., not signed-in) * signed-in users whom I have not yet placed on my "trusted" list
So if I had browsed to [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] any time in the last two months, I would have seen versions made by Andre, Magnus or Brion, since each sysop or developer rights. I would not have seen Ben-Zin's foreign-language links or 217.168.172.202's "Queen of the Night" tweak -- until Sept. 16th, when Andre added a foreign-language link.
What would I have missed? Nothing I really care about. The article was just as good, for my modest purposes, with or without .202's minor copy-edit. The only improvement I really appreciate is the image Magnus uploaded. So for the Mozart article, Erik's "alternative viewing mode" idea works perfectly for me.
We can hammer out the details, if we choose to make Erik's idea into a full-fledged feature request. Here are my own suggestions: * show a flag (possibly optional) indicating the existence of a later, "uncertified" change * set the default for editing to "edit the latest version" * provide an option to "edit the version currently displayed"
As a reader, I may be curious to see what some anonymous or "not yet trusted" contributor has added, so it's to my advantage to be able to access later, "uncertified" versions. I might discover that someone like Clutch or Lir has decided to get with the program and start writing NPOVishly. Or I might find that some new and wonderful user like Zoe has appeared, rising like Venus out of the foam, and is offering excellent contributions from day one.
As an editor, I will often want to compare the "certified" version of an article with what some political hothead or vandal has done to trash it. Please understand the context in which I'm saying this. For me, "certified" would be "users on my trusted list". For you, "certified" means users on YOUR trusted list. This would be an improvement over just using my watchlist, because that only shows the latest change, however minor. With Erik's idea, I would also get a "certified/non-certified" flag (maybe even a color, like green for "goofy" or blue for "be careful").
Well, that's all I have time for right now -- and this letter is getting too long anyway. If there's any interest along these lines, I will create a [[Wikipedia:Certification]] page where we can refine the details. Much as we did with Jeronimo's country project.
Ed Poor
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 09:34:01AM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
What I want, when I request an article to be transmitted from the PediaWiki database to my computer screen, is an article created, last-edited, or certified by my choice of:
- a user with sysop or above authority (41 sysops, 3 developers, 1 owner = 45 people, i.e., the "cabal")
- a signed-in user who is on my "trusted" list
[...]
- show a flag (possibly optional) indicating the existence of a later, "uncertified" change
- set the default for editing to "edit the latest version"
- provide an option to "edit the version currently displayed"
If you allow significant changes to be hidden from you, you will have to get used to pages changing wildly when you press the 'edit the latest version' button -- often so wildly that the change you intended to make no longer makes sense. Or if you use the 'edit the version currently displayed' button, other people will have to get used to their changes being randomly reverted without explanation.
I think this adds up to a fundamentally way of creating an encyclopedia. If you want to try it, I think it would be more polite to set up your own server and make a proper fork.
I don't think the rest of us should have to cope with the damage that this would cause.
-M-
On 10/31/02 1:10 PM, "mattheww+wikipedia@chiark.greenend.org.uk" mattheww+wikipedia@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 09:34:01AM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
What I want, when I request an article to be transmitted from the PediaWiki database to my computer screen, is an article created, last-edited, or certified by my choice of:
- a user with sysop or above authority (41 sysops, 3 developers, 1 owner = 45
people, i.e., the "cabal")
- a signed-in user who is on my "trusted" list
[...]
- show a flag (possibly optional) indicating the existence of a later,
"uncertified" change
- set the default for editing to "edit the latest version"
- provide an option to "edit the version currently displayed"
If you allow significant changes to be hidden from you, you will have to get used to pages changing wildly when you press the 'edit the latest version' button -- often so wildly that the change you intended to make no longer makes sense. Or if you use the 'edit the version currently displayed' button, other people will have to get used to their changes being randomly reverted without explanation.
I think this adds up to a fundamentally way of creating an encyclopedia. If you want to try it, I think it would be more polite to set up your own server and make a proper fork.
I don't think the rest of us should have to cope with the damage that this would cause.
These were my sentiments. I'd be interested in seeing variants of Wikipedia such as this, but they should be independent projects.
Matthew,
If you allow significant changes to be hidden from you, you will have to get used to pages changing wildly when you press the 'edit the latest version' button
in general I would not suggest using the certified mode if you plan to do edits (*if* we want to have it as a mode at all, and not just optional information displayed on the page linking to the last certified revision). That is also the reason I think it should never be the default. A cert mode is good primarily for two purposes:
* Using Wikipedia as a reader only : not everyone is a contributor, some people never will be, and Wikipedia hopefully will be also distributed in non-interactive form (paper, CD-ROM etc). Even contributors sometimes are just looking for good, trustworthy information. While being friendly to writers, we should also be friendly to readers. The certified mode, while optional, seems like a good way to showcase our hardest and best work. * Using the cert system to find current low quality revisions that need work. This is something I had not originally intended, but which seems to make sense -- random page is only so helpful, *especially* if most of our articles are actually of high quality at some point in the future.
I understand concerns about the certified mode, it is not a core part of my proposal, but I would really like to send my Mom a link to a Wikipedia article knowing that she won't accidentally she the notorious goat-man. Still, the proposal would function without it, and we could decide to only do actual Wikipedia-wide filtering in Wikipedia offsprings (other media, other sites etc.).
Regards,
Erik
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org