[Foundation-l] Status of flagged protection (flagged revisions) for English Wikipedia.

[Chad]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>> 2009/9/28 Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia-inc.com>:
>>>
>>>> If the Foundation is bottlenecked at the moment (understandable) then
>>>> how can I help, how can we the community help, to take some of the
>>>> burden off of them to get done what we need to get done for the sake of
>>>> our mission?  :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> The process going forward is pretty clear -
>>>
>>> a) make sure prototype setup reflects desired behavior as per the
>>> en.wp proposal and invite broader testing;
>>>
>
> Perfectly reasonable.
>>> b) make revisions to extension based on public and internal review
>>> with a particular eye to usability;
>>>
> Absolutely commendable.
>>> c) ensure that the extension is fully scalable to en.wp traffic volume;
>>>
> Why on earth would we like to ensure that, particularly
> *before* point d) ?
>
> I can fully understand that there is a contingent
> who devoutly hopes that after the current strictly limited
> use of FR is tried out and people gain more familiarity
> with the interface and the practical way the extension
> works, much of the mystique of it will vanish in a puff
> of smoke and people will be more amenable to extending
> its use.
>
> Nevertheless in reality the current compromise proposal
> owes much to people who were able to only accept it with
> the proviso that quite the opposite of wanting to see it be
> possible to scale up, they required a reasonable assurance
> that its use would *not* be escalated without an overwhelming
> community consensus.
>>> d) deploy on en.wp as per proposal (potentially, per c, initially in
>>> some scale-limited fashion).
>>>
> Not doing d) before being sure of c) seems very much like
> putting the cart before the horse to me. Whether c) will be
> relevant at all would necessarily be contingent on the
> success of d), and the logical order thus should be to just
> do d) and see later if there is any relevance to c) at all.
>
> Or to put it more plainly; it is a very remote possibility
> indeed that extending the Flagged Revision experiment
> in a form that ordinary articles would only display an
> approved revision (without very strict restrictions on
> which articles to apply this requirement to) for many
> people will be something they will accept. So making
> it a prerequisite that such an application has to be
> functionally available in the extension for uses as large
> as the English wikipedia before *any* use of the extension,
> is rather silly as a concept.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I could be very wrong (and Erik feel free to correct if I am), but I think he
was referring to scaling in a completely technical sense of the term, not
"does it scale to Wikipedia's article count in relation to its community."

If it's going to bring the servers down, it needs to be fixed before deployment,
meaning C is certainly before D :)

-Chad