We seem to really gravitate towards complexity on these things. How can we make them simple, addressing a very specific need. We can complicate later. Here is a scenario (which we should start with, not architecture) 1. As an editor I'd like to flag a revision as reviewed/verified by me from the revision screen or list. 2. As an editor I want to see which revisions were verified/had second opinion by other editors. *So instead of a long spec that attempts to solve for a ton of cases, let's start thinking about solving simple, direct pain-points, iteratively.* Can we do that? L On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hey Erik, I'm glad to see that we're imagining similar things. :) This project has been on my to-do list for years. I don't think that building a well-designed service and starting in labs are conflicting options. Regardless this project is marching forward in the next couple of months. I don't think we're breaking any new ground conceptually. Really, we're just building a feature extractor, gathering hand-coded revisions and training a standard classifier. Effective strategies for doing all of these things are well described in the literature and demonstrated in STiki. Lila, your proposal seems to be orthogonal to the project I proposed in the grant. Petr, the developer/maintainer of the current version of Huggle, has been calling for such a service as you describe for years. See http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/392727?do=post_view_thr… -Aaron On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams < kwwilliams(a)kwwilliams.com&gt; wrote:

Jeroen De Dauw schreef op 2014/11/09 0:29: Her comment included 1. As an editor I'd like to flag a revision as reviewed/verified by me from the revision screen or list. 2. As an editor I want to see which revisions were verified/had second opinion by other editors. That's not a "service" by any definition I'm aware of, that's a user interaction, one that seems to presume the existence of the Wikimedia base. There's no doubt that there's a lot of leeway in terms of how much one implements in each release of software, but one should always have a reasonably clear image of the final target, know where the piece being implemented now fits into the final result, and take steps to ensure that each release is sufficiently complete to be useful. There have been some successful products built using the "code first, design later" method, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged. Even SCRUM encourages you to have some idea of what the final result will be, even if each phase is scoped opportunistically. KWW

Lila Tretikov wrote: Our wikis range in size from a few hundred revisions to hundreds of millions of revisions (and growing!). Building a scalable system is hard work and the Wikimedia Foundation has been pretty aggressive in focusing primarily on large wikis (Commons and the English Wikipedia), so perhaps most technical discussions tend to shift to the higher gears as a result. Okay, so... we already have this feature built in to MediaWiki core (it's documented at <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Patrolled_edit>) and we did the whole "try to flag revisions as reviewed" bit in 2008 and 2009 with a MediaWiki extension called FlaggedRevisions (re-branded as "Pending Changes" for added confusion). I'm not sure what you're bringing to the table here. We've already made substantial investments in developing revision review technology that didn't work well as it was seemingly incompatible with the wiki model. MZMcBride

Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: If you say so. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial says "Deploy FlaggedRevs extension to en.wikipedia.org" while https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=3819 says "As mentioned in this post in January, the English Wikipedia will be trying out the Flagged Revisions extension, using a configuration we’re calling Pending Changes." I seem to specifically remember some Wikimedia Foundation middle-management coming along and insisting that FlaggedRevs be called Pending Changes in order to be deployed to the English Wikipedia, but it's possible I'm simply misremembering. Posts such as https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=3843 seem to confirm that the terms were used interchangeably. MZMcBride

As someone who patrols recent changes to our 33,000 (and rising) health sciences-related articles with a diminishing number of colleagues, one thing developers could do to help us keep that content safe would be this: Allow us to tag the log entry of normal revisions (not pending changes/flagged revisions - no medical articles presently have flagged revisions, and none are likely to in the near future) as having been reviewed for policy/guideline compliance by a trusted editor. There are maybe a dozen regular/semi-regular med patrollers (down from about twice that number three years ago), and I'm very conscious that we aren't keeping up. If I see a revision has been reviewed by one of that dozen whom I trust, I'll (not always, but often) skip checking that revision and move on to the next unreviewed revision. This will a) save me and the others a lot of time, allowing us to cover much more ground and b) give us a handle on how thoroughly we're vetting changes to this sensitive content. Ideally, each of us that reviews a revision should be able to tag its log entry - so we can see the depth of review each revision has undergone. The board of Wiki Project Med Foundation are discussing this at the moment, and we see it as a very effective step toward safeguarding and improving our medical offering. If you could do this for us, it would be very much appreciated. Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) &lt;nemowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Thanks Bartosz. Just to clarify: If we apply FlaggedRevs to all medical articles (articles that have the WP:MED template on their talk page), configured to display the latest article version, can we create a permission (say, Medicine Reviewer) that allows one to tag the revision log entry with a comment? Would it interfere in any way with the normal practice of other editors who don't have that permission? Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Bartosz Dziewoński &lt;matma.rex(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: