[WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"

[David Goodman]

But what is the relative rate of new edits between the de and en WPs?

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Risker,
>
> This is a rather belated response to some points you raised earlier about
> pending changes.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Having been very involved in the trial, I would not re-enable the use of
>> Pending Changes until significant changes to the proposed policy are made.
>> Most of the problems that were encountered in the trial are left completely
>> unaddressed.  There should be a prohibition on it being used for articles
>> larger than 55K - after that point, too many people crashed when trying to
>> review.
>>
>
>
> That's never happened to me in de:WP, so I think it's a software problem
> that is fixable (and seems to have been fixed long ago in de:WP, if they
> ever had it).
>
>
>
>> There should be a prohibition on its use for articles that are moving
>> rapidly; contrary to what some thought, pending changes was not really
>> effective for current events articles, because the proposed edits were
>> being overwritten before anyone even reviewed them; and because there is no
>> way to review a single pending change at a time (instead of ALL pending
>> changes), it is inevitable that either bad edits will be accepted or good
>> edits rejected.
>>
>
>
> It could be a problem for very fast-moving articles - like an edit a
> minute, in response to some news event. But I know that the Germans manage,
> and I have never seen it raised as a problem there. The worst thing that
> could happen is that IPs make changes which never see the light of day,
> whereas in en:WP they would have been visible to the public briefly before
> being overwritten. In either case the solution is to slow down.
>
> I haven't found reviewing several unsighted edits a huge problem in de:WP –
> yes, it can be a pain if the 1st, 3rd and 5th edits were good, and the 2nd
> and 4th weren't, but that situation is relatively rare. On the few
> occasions where it has happened to me, I opened a second window with the
> last sighted version and manually transferred the good changes. It's doable.
>
>
>
>> I'd keep pending changes off of biographical articles that have a history
>> of attracting vandalism or excessive vitriol or fandom.  Using pending
>> changes for these articles effectively enshrines the
>> otherwise-never-existing vandalism into the history of the article.  We saw
>> this in quite a few highly visible biographies.
>>
>
>
> It's perfectly possible to have semi-protection in addition to pending
> changes. The Germans have pending changes as default on all articles, but
> still use semi-protection or full protection alongside whenever there is IP
> vandalism, or an edit war.
>
>
>
>> Everyone needs to be clear what exactly the role of the reviewer is; this
>> created a considerable amount of strife during the trial.   I have been
>> given various interpretations of the manner in which flagged revisions is
>> used on German Wikipedia, so do not want to characterize their policies and
>> practices; however, in the absence of good quality, confirmed information
>> on their processes, it's not appropriate to say "let's do it like they do".
>>
>
>
> The German Wikipedia has passive and active reviewers. The main rules given
> at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sichten are as follows:
>
> Passive reviewers autoreview their own edits, but can't review others'.
> Passive reviewing rights are automatically given to users who have been
> registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 150 article edits
> (or 50 article edits subsequently approved by a reviewer).
>
> Active reviewer status (i.e. the right to approve others' edits) is
> automatically conferred on users who have been registered for 60 days and
> have made 300 article edits (or 200 article edits subsequently approved by
> a reviewer).
>
> There are some additional details (no blocks, use of edit summaries for at
> least, work spread out over a number of different articles, etc.), but
> these are secondary.
>
> The system works and keeps out a lot of nonsense. The only thing I would
> change is that I would set a higher standard for users wanting to approve
> BLP changes.
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>
>
>
>> Until it's clear what the role of the reviewer is, editors have no way to
>> know whether or not they are performing in the manner that the community
>> expects.  Further, there is no guarantee that reviewer permissions won't be
>> removed for reasons that have nothing to do with the act of reviewing.
>>
>> The proposed policy essentially says " you can use this instead of
>> semi-protection", but it does not change the criteria for protection in any
>> way.  Therefore, the articles you propose to be covered by pending changes
>> aren't eligible.  What if you think something should be under PC, and
>> another admin comes along and says "hold on, doesn't meet the policy, off
>> it comes"?  Right now, decisions about protections are rarely the subject
>> of inter-admin disagreement.  Is that going to change? If so, who wins?
>>
>> The RFC started from the wrong place.  It should have been focused on what
>> kind of PC policy we would want to have if we wanted to have one. I do see
>> potential uses for pending changes, but I do not support the policy that is
>> being put forward.
>>  <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG