As far as I can tell, the current problem is that ProofreadPage isn't
installed on
. I thought that would have all the live
extensions, so any serious conflicts would get caught before a
configuration goes to visible sites. It seems strange that wikisource has
it and the test site doesn't; that may bear looking into.
Other bugs could take longer to find, but they could be fixed later. This
seems like more of a problem with proofread than lst, although this could
be because I'm not as familiar with it. Since LST is fairly similar to
regular transclusion, and the edit section links are apparently suppressed
by flagged revisions, there's not much to conflict. With proofread, you
could wind up proofreading the wrong version if you're not careful, which
could cause problems if you use this extension to proofread flagged pages
anonymously.
Offhand, I can't think of anything that would be likely to delay launching
flagged revisions, only things that could limit its usefulness until
they're resolved.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:18:10 -0200, Luiz Augusto wrote:
/me slaps "send"
On 10/17/07, Luiz Augusto
<lugusto(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This thread have received some followup at wikiquality-l that aren't
delivered to here (wikisource-l), including a proposal to host a
unofficial test-wiki for Wikisource [1] and a reply to ThomasV [2]
On regards to [1], this is IMHO a great option and I think that the
default configuration for MediaWiki and FlaggedRevs is sufficient (list
of configuration options for FlaggedRevs: [3]),
since my worry is related to transclusion issues from the
LabeledSectionTransclusion extension and interactions between
ProofreadPage javascript and FlaggedRevs javascript
[1] -
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/2007-October/000359.html
[2] -
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/2007-October/000363.html
[3] -
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs#Configuration
On 10/15/07, Birgitte SB
<birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree. I think this extension will be even more useful for
> Wikisource than Wikipedia. Text stability is a more important goal at
> Wikisource. This is what flaggedrevs offers: stability. I certainly
> hope it it will work on Wikisource projects.
>
>
> BirgitteSB
>
> --- thomasV1(a)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.
> >
> > 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(a)gmail.com> An:
> > > wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > CC: wikisource-l(a)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]]
> >
> >
>/me slaps "send"<br><br><div><span
class="gmail_quote">On
10/17/07, <b
class="gmail_sendername">Luiz Augusto</b> <<a
href="mailto:lugusto@gmail.com">lugusto@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:
1px solid
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> This
thread have received some followup at wikiquality-l that aren't
delivered to here (wikisource-l), including a proposal to host a
unofficial test-wiki for Wikisource [1] and a reply to ThomasV
[2]<br><br>On regards to [1], this is IMHO a great option and I think that
the default configuration for MediaWiki and FlaggedRevs is sufficient
(list of configuration options for FlaggedRevs: [3]),
</blockquote><div><br>since my worry is related to transclusion issues
from the LabeledSectionTransclusion extension and interactions between
ProofreadPage javascript and FlaggedRevs
javascript<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> [1] - <a
href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/2007-October/…
target="_blank" onclick="return
top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://lists.wikimedia.org/p…
</a><br>[2] - <a
href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/2007-October/…
target="_blank" onclick="return
top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/2007-October/000363.html…
- <a
href="http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs#Configuratio…
target="_blank" onclick="return
top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs#Configuration
</a><div><span class="e"
id="q_115abf3b0391bc0b_1"><br><br><div><span
class="gmail_quote">On 10/15/07, <b
class="gmail_sendername">Birgitte
SB</b> <<a
href="mailto:birgitte_sb@yahoo.com"
target="_blank" onclick="return
top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com</a>&gt;
wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:
1px solid
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> I
disagree. I think this extension will be even more<br>useful
for Wikisource than Wikipedia. Text stability<br>is a more important goal
at Wikisource. This is what<br>flaggedrevs offers:
stability. I certainly hope it <br>it will work on Wikisource
projects.<br><br><br>BirgitteSB<br><br>--- <a
href="mailto:thomasV1@gmx.de" target="_blank"
onclick="return
top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">thomasV1(a)gmx.de</a>
wrote:<br><br>> Flaggedrevs had been designed with Wikipedia in
<br>> mind.<br>> Writing an encyclopedy article is about
confronting
<br>> multiple<br>> points of view. During this process, the
quality
of<br>> an article might not always improve; the purpose
of<br>>
Flaggedrevs is to flag some revisions as "non<br>>
draft",<br>
> while still allowing users to modify the
article.<br>><br>> I
do not think that this would be useful for<br>>
Wikisource.<br>> A
decrease of quality on a wikisource article can be<br>><br>>
agreed
upon in a much more objective way. <br>> Introducing<br>>
flaggedrevs will likely result on confusion and<br>>
useless<br>>
complexity.<br>><br>> (I am not even sure if Flaggedrevs will
solve
the<br>> problems<br>> faced by wikipedia; once the community
know
what it <br>> really<br>> is about, they might realize
technology
does not<br>> replace<br>>
expertise...)<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>>
--------
Original-Nachricht --------<br>> > Datum: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:39:04
-0300 <br>> > Von: "Luiz Augusto" <<a
href="mailto:lugusto@gmail.com"
target="_blank" onclick="return
top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">lugusto(a)gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>&gt;
> An: <a
href="mailto:wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org"
target="_blank" onclick="return
top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>&gt;
> CC: <a
href="mailto:wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org"
target="_blank" onclick="return
top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>&gt;
> Betreff: [Wikisource-l] Feedback and beta-testing <br>> from
non-Wikipedia projects<br>><br>> > (sorry for my English
and for
the crossposting) <br>> ><br>> > I known that the
FlaggedRevs
extension is under a<br>> review stage and their<br>> >
development is devoted basically to the needs from<br>> the most
known<br>> > Wikimedia<br>
> > project. This is ok to me, no worries on it. But<br>>
since
more Wikimedia<br>> > projects have users watching the development
of<br>> this feature, I think that<br>> > only two
future
official wikis for the public beta <br>> testing is<br>>
>
insufficient.<br>> ><br>> > Wikisource, for
example,
have<br>> LabeledSectionTransclusion and ProofreadPage<br>>
>
enabled on all of yours wikis. These extensions<br> > may have issues
to work
<br>> > appropriately with FlaggedRevs. Enabling these
two<br>>
extensions at the same<br>> > wiki devoted to the English Wikipedia
beta-testing<br>> may generate some<br>> > troubles with
the
en.wp
users that don't known how<br>> and why Wikisource
have<br>>
> these extensions, to exemplify with only one of<br>> the possible
reactions.<br>> > Not<br>> > enabling these two
extensions +
FlaggedRevs at
<br>> someplace may create false<br>> > hopes. And I
think that
knowing that issues and<br>> waiting for someone with<br>>
>
the<br>> > required skills to fix them when get time to
work<br>>
on it is more proper <br>> > instead of a community (a Wikisource
wiki) gaining<br>> consensus to request<br>> >
FlaggedRevs
getting enabled and finding that a new<br>> nice feature
brokes<br>>
> another<br>> > one. <br>>
><br>> >
[[:m:User:555]]<br>><br></blockquote></div></span></div></blockquote></div><br>