[Foundation-l] FlaggedRevisions status (March 2010)
cimonavaro at gmail.com
Thu Mar 4 18:57:46 UTC 2010
William Pietri wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 09:20 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> William Pietri wrote:
>>> Instead, I think the right approach is to put new software out there
>>> frequently, so people can try it out for themselves and form their own
>>> opinions of how close we are. Eventually, both the builders and the
>>> community will agree that there's something worth shipping. And in the
>>> meantime, the discussion that goes on will improve the product in ways
>>> that no mere look at the calendar ever could.
>> What does this paragraph say about the 20 or so Wikimedia wikis that are
>> already using FlaggedRevs?
> Nothing, really. But what I'd say in response to the question I imagine
> you're really asking: the English Wikipedia community has asked for
> something different than the other 20 wikis. And even for the areas the
> software is the same, we think there are some interface changes are
> going to improve both the user experience and the value of the enwiki
Purely as a point of fact it is simply inaccurate that the
20 implementations of flagged revs and patrolled edits
across the other wikies than English Wikipedia are
monolithically identical. I know this firsthand.
If there is something about the implementation at
English Wikipedia that is at the root cause of what
we are discussing here, it is certainly not that
English wikipedia is "different". It is genuinely
tempting to state that there *has* to be something
_unique_, perhaps even "transcendentally unique"
about the goals set for the English Wikipedia
implementation or the environment of that Wikipedia.
I too could write a lot more about my feelings on this,
but prefer not to.
The one thing that I do agree with most on, as
regards to what the motivations of people are,
is that I to refuse to believe there is anything
sinister. Which is definitely not to say there
is nothing wrong just because people are
acting out of impeccable motives. As a simple
logical inference, that is not supportable.
More information about the foundation-l