Hiho,
I have thought a bit about the text of the infobox and I would like to change two things. First of all, for reviewed revisions, the text should state the name of the reviewer, to enhance transparency. And then, I consider the text a tad long and therefore, a bit confusing to the reader. Maybe we could shorten it to the essence. In the german setting, this would look like:
This is the latest quality revision, approved by [[User:Reviewer]] on 24 June 2007. The current revision is usually editable and more up to date. There are 0 revisions [[Difflink|awaiting review]].
Respectively:
This is the latest sighted version. The latest quality revision of this page was approved by [[User:Reviewer]] on 24 June 2007. The current revision is usually editable and more up to date. There are 3 revisions [[Difflink|awaiting sighting]].
What do you think?
Bye,
Philipp
On Friday 06 July 2007 18:49:17 P. Birken wrote:
I have thought a bit about the text of the infobox and I would like to change two things. First of all, for reviewed revisions, the text should state the name of the reviewer, to enhance transparency. And then, I consider the text a tad long and therefore, a bit confusing to the reader. Maybe we could shorten it to the essence. In the german setting, this would look like:
This is the latest quality revision, approved by [[User:Reviewer]] on 24 June 2007. The current revision is usually editable and more up to date. There are 0 revisions [[Difflink|awaiting review]].
I'd make it super short, like in my very first mockups (then also Aarons design would again work usability wise, if you just have a one liner without a green box around and without lots of quality scale bars):
This is the last [[explanation-1|checked]] version. The [[link to current| current revision]] is usually editable and more up to date ([[Difflink| diff]]).
This is the last [[explanation-2|approved]] version. The [[link to current| current revision]] is usually editable and more up to date ([[Difflink| diff]]).
(note the small word difference, which is enough as quality level is clearly signaled by icon)
The single reasons:
# No user should be given. An occasional reader does not even know a single Wikipedian and he also shouldn't. In every place in Wikipedia we urge people to step behind their work. No author is allowed to sign an article, no author is allowed to own an article. This unique Wikipedia feature of the "outside invisible author" did als help us a lot in order to reduce our own selfishness and in order to maintain NPOV. Internally (the regular authors) have enough tools in order to maintain transparency on quality flagging. # No date A date doesn't tell that much alone. An article about "Mars (Planet)" is rather comprehensive and significat changes are on a very long time scale. "Paris Hilton" truly will become quickly outdated in a couple of weeks (at least for her "fans" that love to watch her life in real time). The difference to current version alone is a sufficient indicator for the degree of "outdated". #No number of newer versions: As well a anon user is not interested how many versions are awaiting review, as he simply cannot make use of this information. This is only useful for authors.
So what you can see right at the article page should be only targeted at our "customers" and not our "workers".
Cheers, Arnomane
Do note that the UI uses MedaWiki messages, and as such can be shortened locally with ease.
Maybe I could make an option to disable the specific ratings and bars.
-Aaron Schulz
From: Daniel Arnold arnomane@gmx.de Reply-To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Text of the infobox Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:25:19 +0200
On Friday 06 July 2007 18:49:17 P. Birken wrote:
I have thought a bit about the text of the infobox and I would like to change two things. First of all, for reviewed revisions, the text should state the name of the reviewer, to enhance transparency. And then, I consider the text a tad long and therefore, a bit confusing to the reader. Maybe we could shorten it to the essence. In the german setting, this would look like:
This is the latest quality revision, approved by [[User:Reviewer]] on 24 June 2007. The current revision is usually editable and more up to date. There are 0 revisions [[Difflink|awaiting review]].
I'd make it super short, like in my very first mockups (then also Aarons design would again work usability wise, if you just have a one liner without a green box around and without lots of quality scale bars):
This is the last [[explanation-1|checked]] version. The [[link to current| current revision]] is usually editable and more up to date ([[Difflink| diff]]).
This is the last [[explanation-2|approved]] version. The [[link to current| current revision]] is usually editable and more up to date ([[Difflink| diff]]).
(note the small word difference, which is enough as quality level is clearly signaled by icon)
The single reasons:
# No user should be given. An occasional reader does not even know a single Wikipedian and he also shouldn't. In every place in Wikipedia we urge people to step behind their work. No author is allowed to sign an article, no author is allowed to own an article. This unique Wikipedia feature of the "outside invisible author" did als help us a lot in order to reduce our own selfishness and in order to maintain NPOV. Internally (the regular authors) have enough tools in order to maintain transparency on quality flagging. # No date A date doesn't tell that much alone. An article about "Mars (Planet)" is rather comprehensive and significat changes are on a very long time scale. "Paris Hilton" truly will become quickly outdated in a couple of weeks (at least for her "fans" that love to watch her life in real time). The difference to current version alone is a sufficient indicator for the degree of "outdated". #No number of newer versions: As well a anon user is not interested how many versions are awaiting review, as he simply cannot make use of this information. This is only useful for authors.
So what you can see right at the article page should be only targeted at our "customers" and not our "workers".
Cheers, Arnomane
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play now! http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=club_hotmailtextlink1
On Tuesday 10 July 2007 22:34:43 Aaron Schulz wrote:
Do note that the UI uses MedaWiki messages, and as such can be shortened locally with ease.
I know. But I think a good default is necessary: a) In order to evaluate different ways of placing the new inteface items. I did think for quite a while why I suddenly was against your UI scheme with text below the title line (although I had a similar suggest in my first mockups). And the reason was that it is just because it is a too fancy box with too much content (beside that restricting its width to 80% does not use available screen space as good as possible). b) Less customization needed by users of this extension. For example although I like my KDE desktop very much, I dislike the defaults most of the Linux distributions are applying to it, so I have to tweak my desktop first. Most of the users don't do that (ok wiki admins aren't most of the users but still).
Maybe I could make an option to disable the specific ratings and bars.
This would be definitely a help as it would make your scheme much more concise (and thus favorable) in a very easy setup such as the intended two level flagging of de.wikipedia.
Cheers, Arnomane
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org