Wikiquality-l

wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org

110 discussions

find, review and solve (UI) bugs
by Daniel Arnold 09 Oct '07

09 Oct '07

Hi, The "template problem" has created quite some debate (rightly). I just hope that new people read the old threads about it (this has been discussed quite often in the past) and I think all possible solutions have been proposed and debated enough. Although I don't like the current band aid (templates are always embedded with most recent version) it works for the time being in our test wiki and we should focus IMHO atm a bit more on severe bugs and UI issues (and then later come back to templates) like the ones posted on http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5/Wishlist_and_bugs (please less wishlist for the time being). I'd suggest some systematical review of the UI by everyone (and trying to confirm, solve, etc. bugs of others). Arnomane

1 0

Reverts
by Erik Moeller 09 Oct '07

09 Oct '07

Of all the issues identified so far, reverts strike me as the most significant. You revert vandalism, you don't want to have to re-apply sighting. This happens right now both on manual and automatic reverts. We're already applying sighting automatically when the user is in the editor group and the current version is sighted. How about also doing so if the current version is not sighted, _and_ the text of the submission is identical to the text of the most recently sighted revision? There would be some performance hit due to the comparison, but hopefully it wouldn't be too bad as it would only kick in on reverts. Is the basic idea sound? Is there a simpler way? -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

5 18

German nomenclatura
by Raimond Spekking 08 Oct '07

08 Oct '07

Good evening folks, I have committed the last German translations of the Flagged Revisions into SVN a few minutes ago, it's up-to-date. But some remarks about the German nomenclatura, so I will continue in German: Flagged revisions = Stabile Versionen = Name des Projektes, unabhängig vom Prüfstatus sighted revision = gesichtete Version = 1. Stufe, vor allem frei von Vandalismus quality revision = geprüfte Version = 2. Stufe, fachlich geprüft und für fehlerfrei/vollständig usw. befunden review(ed) = überprüft = der Vorgang, der zur gesichteten _oder_ geprüften Version führt. Mir gefällt hierbei nicht die sprachliche Nähe zur "geprüften Version", etwas besseres ist mir leider noch nicht eingefallen. "Stabilisiert" als Ableitung von "Stabile Version" wäre zwar konsequent/logisch, gefällt mir aber auch nicht. Dazu bzw. insgesamt Anmerkungen/Tipps/Verbesserungsvorschläge für die deutsche Übersetzung? Ich hoffe, dass alle deutschen Meldungen in sich konsistent sind, werde aber noch weiter in Eriks Testwiki herumspielen. Raymond.

6 8

Location
by Magnus Manske 05 Oct '07

05 Oct '07

Thinking about Wikipedia layout, just about every longer page has an image, infobox, or other "data overview template". All these have one thing in common: They are located in the upper right corner of the page. The summary box of the stable versions feature is in the upper right corner of the page. Anyone else see a layout nightmare approaching? Magnus

2 1

Screenshots & docs needed
by Erik Moeller 04 Oct '07

04 Oct '07

I've tried to document the basic behavior on http://wikixp.org/qa but there's definitely a need for more screenshots and in-depth explanations. Is anyone volunteering for the English version? This would be an opportunity for someone who can't contribute code to help. I'd be happy to give you full access to the test site so you can try out everything. NOTE 1: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs has a little bit of material already. NOTE 2: We may have to re-do some of the shots as the UI evolves. -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

2 3

Unofficial stable version demo
by Erik Moeller 04 Oct '07

04 Oct '07

Brion is continuing to review the FlaggedRevs extension for security and scalabilty. (He's already made several fixes.) Meanwhile, I've set up a small demo of the extension in the configuration which I propose we should use for the English Wikipedia. Please don't hit the server too hard or I'll have to take it down. :-) http://wikixp.org/qa/ (This is courteously hosted by the University of Bamberg in collaboration with Open Progress.) The page should pretty much be self-explanatory. Thanks once again to the two main developers of the extension, Aaron Schulz and Jörg Baach. -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

2 3

Wishlist and bugs
by Erik Moeller 03 Oct '07

03 Oct '07

See http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5/Wishlist_and_bugs -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

1 0

Tagged revisions and trust coloring
by Luca de Alfaro 28 Sep '07

28 Sep '07

Dear All, I have been following the various threads on tagged revisions. As many of you know, we have been developing a trust coloring of the text of Wikipedia articles. The trust value of a word depends on the computed reputation of the author of the text, as well as on the reputations of all visitors to the page; for more information, see http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/where a demo is also available. In a short time, we will have new (we hope better) version of the demo out, and we will ask for your feedback; we plan by the end of October to have a demo with all the English Wikipedia, as of the Feb 6 2007 dump (the last complete one), colored. We are still a few months away from doing the coloring for an on-line, up-to-date, version of the Wikipedia, but we are working towards that goal. It may be fun to start thinking at how tagged revisions and trust coloring may fit together. My impression is that one would be able to get something superior to either of them separately. For instance: - If an article lacks a manually tagged revision, one could select as "stable" revision a recent revision where as little text as possible is marked low trust (orange background). - Currenly, text becomes more trusted due to edits: if one edits a paragraph, one lends a bit of her/his own reputation to the paragraph (on the assumption that one reads the paragraph she/he is editing). A mechanism similar to trusted revisions would enable users to say "I agree with this paragraph and I have checked it" without need for editing it. - If a manually tagged revision becomes quite old with respect to the most recent revision (we can measure age both in terms of edit distance and in terms of n. of intervening revisions), we could detect it, and offer instead of the automatically tagged revision, a revision that is more recent, and with no (or as little as possible) low-trust text. - We could monitor articles where the tagged revision becomes old (as above), and good candidate revisions are available later, and alert people in the "watch list" of the article, so that they might consider going to the article and tagging a newer revision. These are just ideas that came on top of my mind; I am curious to know which other suggestions or thoughts you might have. As I said, we are still more than a month away from a version of trust coloring that works for the up-to-date wikipedia, but since we are thinking of how to architect the system, it might be worth to think at how it fits with tagged revisions... Another issue is this: might it be that, once the trust coloring is available, the need for showing tagged revisions by default is lessened? If a trust coloring becomes only one click away, perhaps it is the trust-colored and tagged revisions that should be available on demand, and the up-to-date revision should be shown as default, as it has been so far? I am very interested in your comments... Best regards, Luca

1 0

Re: [Wikiquality-l] Flagged Revisions too instrusive
by ulim 25 Sep '07

25 Sep '07

--- "P. Birken" <pbirken(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No, this is indeed a valid concern. A feature that allows to unflag an > article is not included. Unflagging sort of happens by creating a new > version and flagging that one instead. So, once an article has been > flagged, it is "in the system". However, initially no article is > flagged. Leaving aside the sighted flag for a moment, what about the quality version flag? Suppose it is given erroneously, because someone made a mistake in checking the sources for the article - this can happen easily. In that case there should be a way to unflag the article, no? Ulrich

6 6

Re: [Wikiquality-l] Flagged Revisions too intrusive
by Andrew Whitworth 25 Sep '07

25 Sep '07

>No, this is indeed a valid concern. A feature that allows to unflag an >article is not included. Unflagging sort of happens by creating a new >version and flagging that one instead. So, once an article has been >flagged, it is "in the system". However, initially no article is >flagged. On en.wikibooks, a major concern is the ability to "freeze" a book during a semester so that students and teachers have a consistent book version to work from. That said, we would like to have a "stable" version of the book that appears to student readers while a "development" version can continue to be worked on in the background. I guess what I'm most interested in is: 1) The ability to show a flagged version of some pages to all readers by default, but allow development to continue on the "current revision" of the page. 2) The ability to show the current development version of pages that dont need to be frozen, by default. Now, there are ways to do this kind of thing using clever page protections now, but I think it would be generally preferrable to have the flaggedrevs extension streamline this process for us. Is this kind of thing going to be feasible? --andrew Whitworth _________________________________________________________________ Kick back and relax with hot games and cool activities at the Messenger Café. http://www.cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_SeptWLtagline

2 1

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Older →

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Wikiquality-l