[Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Aude]

On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:00 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
>>> Yes it is, and it's an important one.  Several of us had already  
>>> been
>>> working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing  
>>> had
>>> widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful  
>>> if more
>> of
>>> the recommendations on improving the software were incorporated,  
>>> thus our
>>> recommendation that it not proceed so rapidly.
>>
>> I respect what you are saying here, very much.  But I think the right
>> approach is always "release early, release often".  There is no  
>> need to
>> rush, but there is also no reason not to release fixes as they are
>> available, because there is no particular "ship date" with  
>> marketing, etc.
>>
>
> Jimmy, here's where you're wrong.  The first version was marketed as  
> the
> solution that would allow the [[George W. Bush]] article to be  
> publicly
> edited - it was marketed that way on and off wiki - and instead we  
> had 40
> hours of non-stop IP vandalism and browser crashes for almost every
> reviewer. (The first problem was easily anticipated by just about  
> every
> administrator on the site, and the second one by anyone who'd  
> already seen
> what had happened with other very large articles.)
>
> This "product" has to be sold to admins to get them to use it; they  
> saw the
> first version and all of its significant problems and aren't very
> interested.  And until there is a product that passes their smell  
> test, they
> still won't be interested. So installing an "upgrade" that hasn't  
> resolved
> ALL of the significant issues is not going to interest the  
> "consumers".
>
> The advantage of a coordinated effort of a new trial with an upgraded
> release that has addressed all of the significant issues *and* has  
> been
> well-tested on the test wiki is that it can be used to market the  
> tool.  It
> doesn't matter whether or not it works well if the people in the  
> position to
> use the tool cannot be persuaded it is worthy of their attention.  
> Take a
> look at the stats, Jimmy: Six administrators were responsible for  
> entering
> 80% of the articles into the first trial, and another 12 responsible  
> for the
> next 17%.  Most administrators were not interested the first time  
> around.
>
>
>
>>> It's pretty hard to maintain motivation, though, when it's clear  
>>> that the
>>> software's going to be a permanent feature regardless of what the  
>>> project
>>> does or thinks, and that any further "trial" is not going to  
>>> change that
>>> fact.
>> I think that's very very far from true.  I think that everything the
>> Foundation has said, and everything that I have said, and everything
>> that (nearly) everyone on all sides has said, indicates nearly 100%
>> universal agreement that in order for the feature to be enabled
>> permanently, it has to achieve consensus.
>>
>
>> Consensus is not a "hold one vote and give up if you don't make it"
>> process, but rather an iterative give-and-take.
>>
>> If I believed that the current version was the best that the  
>> Foundation
>> could deliver, I would be adamant about just shutting down PC as  
>> soon as
>> is practical, and believe that the right way forward would be to push
>> for major expansion of the use of semi-protection.   I would hate  
>> to do
>> that, because I think that a well-implemented PC is a better solution
>> than semi-protection, striking a better balance.
>>
>> My point is this: I think it very far from a foregone conclusion  
>> that we
>> will have PC in use in the longterm.  It has to improve a lot before
>> that can happen.  The early signs, though, are that it was popular.
>>
>
> I'm really curious to know what metric you're using to determine  
> that it was
> "popular".  The *idea* is popular with a significant segment of the
> community, which is where much of the support in the two polls came  
> from;
> but the *tool* itself wasn't very popular with many editors. And the  
> concept
> of administrator-granted "reviewer" permissions went over like a lead
> balloon with a pretty big segment of the community.
>
> Put the upgrades on the test wiki. Recruit a pile of editors (not just
> administrators) to really put it through its paces and drive it  
> hard, both
> those who are technically savvy and those whose strength is  
> content.  These
> editors are your potential change agents; if they're convinced it's  
> working
> satisfactorily and that major issues have been resolved, they will  
> spread
> the word on-wiki.  Sticking poorly tested software upgrades onto the  
> #7
> website, and expecting people to be enthusiastic, is remarkably  
> optimistic.
>
> Risker/Anne

Regret I was really not involved much in the trial or polls (mostly  
been on wiki break for the past ~9 months) but quite concerned now  
given Risker's concerns about the software being buggy and other issues.

And seeing people that I have lots of respect for in hot debate (both  
sides) concerns me... seems tricky to find the right balance and  
solution for moving forward.

[maybe setting rights to bureaucrats or some higher level for now?  
Allowing only more narrow testing maybe in non-article space or  
something? Until we can decide what/how/when to move forward with next  
trial...just throwing ideas out]

Anyway, I would like to be more informed and try testing in some test  
space (is there a test wiki for this?) and some summary of the key  
issues that I can see?

@aude


> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l