(sorry for my English and for the crossposting)
I known that the FlaggedRevs extension is under a review stage and their development is devoted basically to the needs from the most known Wikimedia project. This is ok to me, no worries on it. But since more Wikimedia projects have users watching the development of this feature, I think that only two future official wikis for the public beta testing is insufficient.
Wikisource, for example, have LabeledSectionTransclusion and ProofreadPage enabled on all of yours wikis. These extensions may have issues to work appropriately with FlaggedRevs. Enabling these two extensions at the same wiki devoted to the English Wikipedia beta-testing may generate some troubles with the en.wp users that don't known how and why Wikisource have these extensions, to exemplify with only one of the possible reactions. Not enabling these two extensions + FlaggedRevs at someplace may create false hopes. And I think that knowing that issues and waiting for someone with the required skills to fix them when get time to work on it is more proper instead of a community (a Wikisource wiki) gaining consensus to request FlaggedRevs getting enabled and finding that a new nice feature brokes another one.
[[:m:User:555]]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Luiz Augusto wrote:
(sorry for my English and for the crossposting)
I known that the FlaggedRevs extension is under a review stage and their development is devoted basically to the needs from the most known Wikimedia project. This is ok to me, no worries on it. But since more Wikimedia projects have users watching the development of this feature, I think that only two future official wikis for the public beta testing is insufficient.
Wikisource, for example, have LabeledSectionTransclusion and ProofreadPage enabled on all of yours wikis. These extensions may have issues to work appropriately with FlaggedRevs. Enabling these two extensions at the same wiki devoted to the English Wikipedia beta-testing may generate some troubles with the en.wp users that don't known how and why Wikisource have these extensions, to exemplify with only one of the possible reactions. Not enabling these two extensions + FlaggedRevs at someplace may create false hopes. And I think that knowing that issues and waiting for someone with the required skills to fix them when get time to work on it is more proper instead of a community (a Wikisource wiki) gaining consensus to request FlaggedRevs getting enabled and finding that a new nice feature brokes another one.
[[:m:User:555]]
If you can get me a list of configurations that you would like to test, I'll be glad to set up a mini Wikifarm on my server. They won't be "official" showcase wikis but should allow individuals such as yourself to experiment with and attempt to find bugs in the configuration.
- -- Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
http://amidaniel.com cannon.danielc@gmail.com
That sounds like a great idea. I fear that using additional official Betatests would lead to a worse test, becauses ressources are distributed too much. However, I think that flagged revisions are very well suited for the needs of for example WikiSource or WikiNews and am therefore rather happy if the needs of these communities can be adressed.
Bye,
Philipp
2007/10/15, Daniel Cannon cannon.danielc@gmail.com:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Luiz Augusto wrote:
(sorry for my English and for the crossposting)
I known that the FlaggedRevs extension is under a review stage and their development is devoted basically to the needs from the most known Wikimedia project. This is ok to me, no worries on it. But since more Wikimedia projects have users watching the development of this feature, I think that only two future official wikis for the public beta testing is insufficient.
Wikisource, for example, have LabeledSectionTransclusion and ProofreadPage enabled on all of yours wikis. These extensions may have issues to work appropriately with FlaggedRevs. Enabling these two extensions at the same wiki devoted to the English Wikipedia beta-testing may generate some troubles with the en.wp users that don't known how and why Wikisource have these extensions, to exemplify with only one of the possible reactions. Not enabling these two extensions + FlaggedRevs at someplace may create false hopes. And I think that knowing that issues and waiting for someone with the required skills to fix them when get time to work on it is more proper instead of a community (a Wikisource wiki) gaining consensus to request FlaggedRevs getting enabled and finding that a new nice feature brokes another one.
[[:m:User:555]]
If you can get me a list of configurations that you would like to test, I'll be glad to set up a mini Wikifarm on my server. They won't be "official" showcase wikis but should allow individuals such as yourself to experiment with and attempt to find bugs in the configuration.
Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
http://amidaniel.com cannon.danielc@gmail.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHEsEqFRAT5u/mSaMRAi2wAKCnWNxrPJ+14/NKtWzRuChKbPRh6QCgqKne /OcyEPddzHNH+4kr+jY9G/E= =kERv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Flaggedrevs had been designed with Wikipedia in mind. Writing an encyclopedy article is about confronting multiple points of view. During this process, the quality of an article might not always improve; the purpose of Flaggedrevs is to flag some revisions as "non draft", while still allowing users to modify the article.
I do not think that this would be useful for Wikisource. A decrease of quality on a wikisource article can be agreed upon in a much more objective way. Introducing flaggedrevs will likely result on confusion and useless complexity.
(I am not even sure if Flaggedrevs will solve the problems faced by wikipedia; once the community know what it really is about, they might realize technology does not replace expertise...)
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:39:04 -0300 Von: "Luiz Augusto" lugusto@gmail.com An: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Betreff: [Wikisource-l] Feedback and beta-testing from non-Wikipedia projects
(sorry for my English and for the crossposting)
I known that the FlaggedRevs extension is under a review stage and their development is devoted basically to the needs from the most known Wikimedia project. This is ok to me, no worries on it. But since more Wikimedia projects have users watching the development of this feature, I think that only two future official wikis for the public beta testing is insufficient.
Wikisource, for example, have LabeledSectionTransclusion and ProofreadPage enabled on all of yours wikis. These extensions may have issues to work appropriately with FlaggedRevs. Enabling these two extensions at the same wiki devoted to the English Wikipedia beta-testing may generate some troubles with the en.wp users that don't known how and why Wikisource have these extensions, to exemplify with only one of the possible reactions. Not enabling these two extensions + FlaggedRevs at someplace may create false hopes. And I think that knowing that issues and waiting for someone with the required skills to fix them when get time to work on it is more proper instead of a community (a Wikisource wiki) gaining consensus to request FlaggedRevs getting enabled and finding that a new nice feature brokes another one.
[[:m:User:555]]
On 10/15/07, thomasV1@gmx.de thomasV1@gmx.de wrote:
<snip> (I am not even sure if Flaggedrevs will solve the problems faced by wikipedia; once the community know what it really is about, they might realize technology does not replace expertise...)
Flaggedrevs is a temporary fix for human stupidity.
On Monday 15 October 2007 10:46:18 thomasV1@gmx.de wrote:
Flaggedrevs had been designed with Wikipedia in mind. Writing an encyclopedy article is about confronting multiple points of view. During this process, the quality of an article might not always improve; the purpose of Flaggedrevs is to flag some revisions as "non draft", while still allowing users to modify the article.
FlaggedRevs is being pursued mainly by Wikipedians but is has been designed very flexible (see the very first posts by P. Birken and Erik in the list archive).
Your use case "several authors with different points of views editing an article" is only one possible use case and even not the most important one we are targetting at right now.
Once again: The basic feature of FlaggedRevs (every user above a certain automatic threshold can flag an article version as "non vandalized") provides *nothing* against POV and edit wars among editors. It just helps against random vandalism ("Peter P. is gay"), some kinds of spam and slashdotting of certain articles.
There are stricter levels of flagging in this system such as the "reviewed" flag. Only editors in the reviewer group (a user group appointed by the bureaucrats) are able to flag an article version as reviewed. It is suggested that the first group of these reviewers are academic experts of their subject.
However all these flags (number, name), levels (how fine grained), rights (who is allowed to set which flag) and display (what to show to the reader) are highly customizable by the site admin and adaptable for many needs.
I do not think that this would be useful for Wikisource. A decrease of quality on a wikisource article can be agreed upon in a much more objective way. Introducing flaggedrevs will likely result on confusion and useless complexity.
Quite the contrary FlaggedRevs will be particular useful for Wikisource and Wikinews. Currently it is really a pitty to write protect an article within these projects after they are completed. This makes it extremly hard to maintain these articles, such as removing/renaming images (very frequent problem of Commons admins) and adjusting category and template stuff.
With FlaggedRevs you don't need a write protection anylonger in these cases. A group of appointed people in Wikisource could flag an article as "ready" and every anon reader would see the last flagged version by default. On the other side other people can freely edit these pages and changes such as maintenance tasks can be done by everyone and from time to time a reviewer can stop by and look if these changes were ok or not and could flag them.
This would dramatically improve the work flow of Wikisource and Wikinews which is sadly quite closed after a certain time at the moment.
(I am not even sure if Flaggedrevs will solve the problems faced by wikipedia; once the community know what it really is about, they might realize technology does not replace expertise...)
None expects FlaggedRevs to be the magic solution (again see the very first posts). FlaggedRevs is an assistant technology meant to help editors focussing on the really hard cases (and not so much on lame random vandalism like now).
Arnomane
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org