(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]]
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]]
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@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@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]]
-- GMX FreeMail: 1 GB Postfach, 5 E-Mail-Adressen, 10 Free SMS. Alle Infos und kostenlose Anmeldung: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freemail
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/
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's [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]).
[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@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@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@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]]
-- GMX FreeMail: 1 GB Postfach, 5 E-Mail-Adressen, 10 Free SMS. Alle Infos und kostenlose Anmeldung: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freemail
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
/me slaps "send"
On 10/17/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@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@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@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@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]]
As far as I can tell, the current problem is that ProofreadPage isn't installed on test.wikipedia.org. 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@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@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@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@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]]
/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/000359.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/2007-October/000359.html </a><br>[2] - <a href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/2007-October/000363.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/2007-October/000363.html</a><br>[3] - <a href="http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs#Configuration" 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@yahoo.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;"> 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@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@gmail.com</a>><br>> > An: <a href="mailto:wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>> > CC: <a href="mailto:wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>> > 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>
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org