Call from Nicole Martin, Daily Telegraph, asking after the article that was in yesterday's New Scientist:
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19526226.200-wikipedia-20-...
(full article only with login)
The NS article apparently talks in detail about "only editors with 30 edits in 30 days" and so forth. I said that wasn't set in stone at all - there will probably be a low hurdle like that, but all the details are still being worked out.
Points I repeated a few times:
* Casual readers will see the marked-stable version by default, logged-in editors will see the current live version * Anyone can still edit, anonymous or not (you still won't need a login to fix a spelling error) * Details are NOT fixed yet, resolving over the next two months * Almost certainly will go live on German Wikipedia in November this year * No timeline for other editions, particularly English, though we're enthusiastically watching * English has notably worked to increase quality over the past couple of years, adding references, marking unreferenced articles, etc., so readers will at least know what they're getting * http://quality.wikimedia.org/ - I asked her to include the URL in the article, strongly suggested she read up on things there.
(Please correct me as needed!)
The article will be in tomorrow's paper, likely to go online tonight.
- d.
2007/9/20, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
The NS article apparently talks in detail about "only editors with 30 edits in 30 days" and so forth. I said that wasn't set in stone at all
- there will probably be a low hurdle like that, but all the details
are still being worked out.
I believe I know the source of this: in [[de:Wikipedia:Gesichtete Versionen]], it still says what the initial proposal was, namely 30 days and 30 edits. This was all in all considered too low in the discussion there, but we couldn't really agree on a certain number. The crucial points to name here are essentially the following: i) users are promoted to editor status in an automatic way, ii) 30 days and 30 edits is not set in stone and iii) we will probably not tell what the magic number is once the feature go live, to make gaming more difficult.
Take care,
Philipp
On 20/09/2007, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
2007/9/20, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
The NS article apparently talks in detail about "only editors with 30 edits in 30 days" and so forth. I said that wasn't set in stone at all
- there will probably be a low hurdle like that, but all the details
are still being worked out.
I believe I know the source of this: in [[de:Wikipedia:Gesichtete Versionen]], it still says what the initial proposal was, namely 30 days and 30 edits. This was all in all considered too low in the discussion there, but we couldn't really agree on a certain number. The crucial points to name here are essentially the following: i) users are promoted to editor status in an automatic way, ii) 30 days and 30 edits is not set in stone and iii) we will probably not tell what the magic number is once the feature go live, to make gaming more difficult.
Yes. I said "there will probably be a low hurdle, we haven't decided what yet." And I'm sure we'll get creative vandals who create an account to validate stuff and an account to vandalise stuff.
I also said we'd decided casual readers would see the stable version - I see from [[m:Wikiquality]] that this isn't set in stone either. Which I'll keep in mind :-)
- d.
On Thursday 20 September 2007 14:18:18 David Gerard wrote:
Call from Nicole Martin, Daily Telegraph, asking after the article that was in yesterday's New Scientist: [...] Points I repeated a few times:
- Casual readers will see the marked-stable version by default,
logged-in editors will see the current live version
- Anyone can still edit, anonymous or not (you still won't need a
login to fix a spelling error)
- Details are NOT fixed yet, resolving over the next two months
- Almost certainly will go live on German Wikipedia in November this year
- No timeline for other editions, particularly English, though we're
enthusiastically watching
- English has notably worked to increase quality over the past couple
of years, adding references, marking unreferenced articles, etc., so readers will at least know what they're getting
- http://quality.wikimedia.org/ - I asked her to include the URL in
the article, strongly suggested she read up on things there.
The New Scientist article has caused a Spiegel-Online article http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,507076,00.html with even more questionable statements ("Wikipedia will be changeable by trusted users only").
I have written a comment to the author and CC'ed it to wikide-l (sorry it's written in German ;): http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikide-l/2007-September/019765.html
Greetings, Arnomane
Hi,
Daniel Arnold schrieb am 21.09.2007 17:07:
The New Scientist article has caused a Spiegel-Online article http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,507076,00.html with even more questionable statements ("Wikipedia will be changeable by trusted users only").
This was changed after we contacted the head of the Netzwelt-Ressort. Nonetheless the article is far from beeing good.
Bye, Tim.
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org