[WikiEN-l] Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Anthony <wikiagk at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I don't see what why it is advantageous to not tell an anonymous
> editor that their change will only be visible once it has been
> approved. Some might even be glad that we're finally bringing in a
> peer review system for the more bothersome articles.

Except it _is_ visible.  To the whole blinking world.  Do we have a
notice on talk pages that your edits will not be visible?  Why not?
The draft version is more accessible than the talk page (in that the
draft version is shown by default to some people).

The way the current setup is working— you get a warning "Edits must be
reviewed before being published on this page" which is an outright lie
unless you admit a domain specific definition of "published" which is
mostly inconsistent with common expectations, and if you navigate away
from the page and come back it looks like your edits are gone
completely. :(


On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> Once we've had it running for a while, we can give people an idea of
> how long it will take (hopefully the median will be no more than a few
> minutes).

That would be pretty darn awesome.

We still have the problem of people who don't see / misunderstand the
notice and then their edits are missing if they navigate back to the
page within the window.

It's a pretty sucky experience, even knowing full well how the site
works, to navigate back to a page and have all your hard work reverted
within a minute.  We ought to try as hard as we can to avoid the
flagged revision system falsely creating this experience.


On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:08 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Saying who the edit is visible to ("Your edit is visible to you and
> any logged-in users") rather than who it isn't visible to ("Your edit
> has been placed in a collective in tray for someone to get around to
> sometime maybe never") would probably be nicer too.
>
> As long as it's clear enough!
>
> I realise all sorts of things about Wikipedia are confusing to the
> casual reader/editor, but that's because they are confusing. I don't
> think we should pretend they aren't.


"Your edit is visible to you and any logged-in users" is still a
misleading over-simplification. It's also visible to everyone who
clicks two buttons rather than one.  What about pretending that it
isn't complicated again? ;)


"Your edit is in the default view for you and any logged-in users."
would be better, hyper-linking default view to a page explaining
flagged protection. This would be scrupulously and technically honest,
without being excessively long or ringing alarm bells for people who
don't really care about the details.

Following Thomas Dalton's suggestion, this could be augmented to "Your
edit is in the default view for you and any other logged-in users.
Most edits are made the default view for all readers within X
minutes." once there is data to support the claim.


Regardless of the notice part— it sound like you support making anons
see the draft version of a page (all pages?) after they've edited?
The two issues are somewhat separable— though I think a weakly worded
notice requires drafts-after-edit, while a more detailed notice can be
used in either case.