Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Flagged revisions: scuppered?
> Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
Doc glasgow
After Jimbo's intervention, it looked like we were going to get flagged revisions on all BLPs. That seemed like a great step forward - although not nearly enough. (Flagged was never going to be a panacea, since less credible untruths (which is the really damaging stuff - as opposed to obvious vandalism and simple abuse) would end up getting reviewed sloppily and not picked up.)



However, today sees a pile on for a really really watered-down version even of this. (See here.)

This new idea will allow any autoconfirmed user to mark versions as OK. The net result will be (perhaps) to reduce obvious IP vandalism, but it does nothing to protect BLP subjects against determined detractors.

Indeed, it seems the aim is that this will simply be used on articles currently semi-protected (and NOT all BLPs). So it offers nothing at all to the BLP subject. Before, if semi-protected, the new user of IP could not edit, now IP or new user can edit in a limited way. Meanwhile, if this passes it will give the sense that the community has "done something" and set back the cause of doing anything that actually helps.

A sad day. unhappy.gif

This new proposal is an effective spoiler.
Alison
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 24th January 2009, 4:10pm) *

This new idea will allow any autoconfirmed user to mark versions as OK. The net result will be (perhaps) to reduce obvious IP vandalism, but it does nothing to protect BLP subjects against determined detractors.

Absolutely not good enough. No way mad.gif
Sarcasticidealist
I'm a little puzzled: on the page itself, it appears to be contemplated as a proposal separate from any other applications of flagged revisions that have been discussed. It's only on the talk page that people seem to think this is an alternative (which it plainly isn't, for the reasons you've noted).
Doc glasgow
QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Sun 25th January 2009, 12:17am) *

I'm a little puzzled: on the page itself, it appears to be contemplated as a proposal separate from any other applications of flagged revisions that have been discussed. It's only on the talk page that people seem to think this is an alternative (which it plainly isn't, for the reasons you've noted).


It will (at any rate) set a damaging precedent that "anyone can review". That makes flagged useless going forward.
Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 24th January 2009, 5:22pm) *
It will (at any rate) set a damaging precedent that "anyone can review". That makes flagged useless going forward.
Assuming the review flag for this "flagged protection" is necessarily the same as for any other application of flagged revisions, that's true. But the proposal also seems to contemplate a "full flagged protection" in which only administrators would be able to review, which seems to suggest that it's possible to have different sets of review flags.
Doc glasgow
QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Sun 25th January 2009, 12:35am) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 24th January 2009, 5:22pm) *
It will (at any rate) set a damaging precedent that "anyone can review". That makes flagged useless going forward.
Assuming the review flag for this "flagged protection" is necessarily the same as for any other application of flagged revisions, that's true. But the proposal also seems to contemplate a "full flagged protection" in which only administrators would be able to review, which seems to suggest that it's possible to have different sets of review flags.


Perhaps.

But whatever the intention of the proposers (and their timing makes me suspicious), look at those supporting this. Many see it as an alternative or compromise. There is no doubt that this will steal support from it. Plenty of people will say "we've got a flagged thing now, we shoudn't do another one for some time until we see this one working....and months and months will go by.

This proposal is all about making BLPs MORE open for editing.
One
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 25th January 2009, 12:10am) *

After Jimbo's intervention, it looked like we were going to get flagged revisions on all BLPs. That seemed like a great step forward - although not nearly enough. (Flagged was never going to be a panacea, since less credible untruths (which is the really damaging stuff - as opposed to obvious vandalism and simple abuse) would end up getting reviewed sloppily and not picked up.)



However, today sees a pile on for a really really watered-down version even of this. (See here.)

This new idea will allow any autoconfirmed user to mark versions as OK. The net result will be (perhaps) to reduce obvious IP vandalism, but it does nothing to protect BLP subjects against determined detractors.

Indeed, it seems the aim is that this will simply be used on articles currently semi-protected (and NOT all BLPs). So it offers nothing at all to the BLP subject. Before, if semi-protected, the new user of IP could not edit, now IP or new user can edit in a limited way. Meanwhile, if this passes it will give the sense that the community has "done something" and set back the cause of doing anything that actually helps.

A sad day. unhappy.gif

This new proposal is an effective spoiler.


We still have the option of civil disobedience, which is how many things get done on Wikipedia.

I propose that we (that is, admins with a clue) "flag protect" every BLP to have suffered demonstrated libel for more than a few minutes. Doing this will serve two purposes: (1) it'll add more articles to the flagged universe, (2) it'll demonstrate that this is a serious problem needing a serious response.
Moulton
QUOTE(One @ Sat 24th January 2009, 7:43pm) *
We still have the option of civil disobedience, which is how many things get done on Wikipedia.

It's almost the only way to make any real progress in issues impinging on civil rights.
Kato
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 25th January 2009, 12:38am) *

But whatever the intention of the proposers (and their timing makes me suspicious), look at those supporting this. Many see it as an alternative or compromise. There is no doubt that this will steal support from it. Plenty of people will say "we've got a flagged thing now, we shoudn't do another one for some time until we see this one working....and months and months will go by.

This proposal is all about making BLPs MORE open for editing.

Take names of these people.

There are 26 names so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ion#Feeler_poll

The proposer .:Alex:. (T-C-L-K-R-D)

QUOTE(BLP extremist)
Welcome! I'm Alex, and this is my user page. I'm an Australian living in England and I frequently edit video game related articles on Wikipedia, although I also often edit other types of articles as well. My Wikimedia Commons account can be found here.


Some of the names look familiar from the list of People who refuse to equally protect BLPs. I see MZMcBride (T-C-L-K-R-D) in the new list of the guilty again - this guy is bad news.
Tex
The real question is not "will it work?" but "how much will it take for this new feature to be abused/misused/raped at will?" What wikipedia needs is an idiot-behavior-filtering, like most communities on the internet that are bigger than a given N, but things like this only exist in Utopia.
EricBarbour
Sorry to say "I told you so", but.....

The same names will keep popping up, and they will hammer on this
issue until it breaks. They are already challenging Jimbo directly.

I still think a costly lawsuit is the only thing that will force change in the wiki-whore world.

(Still need some proof? Kato will explain.)
Kato
I'm unclear of the way this new proposal is supposed to work, but this guy loves it:

QUOTE(Some Idiot)
Strongest possible Support This is a great proposal, that will allow IP and new editors to edit articles that would otherwise be semi or full-protected.--Res2216firestar 21:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


So this means that BLP victims will get even less protection than before?

Just how much of a bully can Wikipedia be?
Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 24th January 2009, 8:20pm) *
So this means that BLP victims will get even less protection than before?
Depends on how it's used. While an article that's semi-protected can't be edited by I.P.s and new accounts, one that was "semi-flag protected" or whatever they're calling it could be edited by I.P.s and new accounts, but the edits wouldn't show up until they were reviewed by an autoconfirmed account.
LaraLove
This is stupid. And I find it amusing that Sceptre, who BAWWWWs about his ED bio all the time, would not be in full support of Wikipedia protecting the actual bios of people who matter.

This whole thing is stupid as hell. Why is the project even still open to anyone? Who was is that said something like "Open editing is a good way to start a project, but it's not a good way to finish one"? I think it was Kelly Martin. It may not be a good way to finish one, but it may end up being the reason it ends.

It's time to lock out IPs. Register to edit. Takes like 30 seconds (four minutes if you don't have a unique name, leaving you to cycle through various letter and number combinations (spell-checker says that's not a word, but I call BS) until you hit that jackpot of a name that's not already registered). And require ISP email to get rid of most of this sockpuppetry bullshit. Problems not solved, but at least improved.

The giant void of common sense and clue on this project has given me a headache.
Sylar
QUOTE(Alison @ Sun 25th January 2009, 12:17am) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 24th January 2009, 4:10pm) *

This new idea will allow any autoconfirmed user to mark versions as OK. The net result will be (perhaps) to reduce obvious IP vandalism, but it does nothing to protect BLP subjects against determined detractors.

Absolutely not good enough. No way mad.gif

laugh.gif
Alison
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 24th January 2009, 6:30pm) *

Sorry to say "I told you so", but.....

The same names will keep popping up, and they will hammer on this
issue until it breaks. They are already challenging Jimbo directly.

I still think a costly lawsuit is the only thing that will force change in the wiki-whore world.

Thatcher's comment on the RfAr needs to be quoted here. Once again, he's got it spot-on;
QUOTE(Thatcher @ arbcom case)
Sooner or later some smart lawyer is going to figure out he should subpoena checkusers for their private files instead of just the Foundation. Sooner or later some checkuser is going to have to fly halfway around the world to testify in a libel trial about the identification of the editor responsible for the libel. Sooner or later, someone is going to make a plausible claim that Wikimedia's common carrier immunity should be pierced, causing thousands of dollars in legal fees. If 60% agreement is not sufficient to approve a test, then it is time someone took important decisions out of the hands of (physical and intellectual) children and let the grownups take over. Thatcher 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

... and ...
QUOTE(Thatcher @ arbcom case)
Protonk, I know from my own experience that Wikipedia biographies have caused real life pain and financial damages to their subjects. We adopt changes not only because they are legally required, but because they are the moral and ethical thing to do. Thatcher 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. As an oversighter and checkuser, I can vouch for the above and have seen similar again and again and again. Working on oversight, you see the worst of BLP nonsense, and it can be soul-destroying. BTW, I'm still working on oversight for that very reason; removing egregious BLP stuff & potentially libelous nonsense.

SirFozzie
Let's call a spade a spade here. This is the opponents of Flagged Revisions on BLP's attempt to use the old Microsoft tactic on it:

"Embrace, extend and extinguish"
carbuncle
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Sun 25th January 2009, 9:04am) *

Let's call a spade a spade here. This is the opponents of Flagged Revisions on BLP's attempt to use the old Microsoft tactic on it:

"Embrace, extend and extinguish"


Exactly right, IMHO.
Lar
QUOTE(Alison @ Sun 25th January 2009, 2:18am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 24th January 2009, 6:30pm) *

Sorry to say "I told you so", but.....

The same names will keep popping up, and they will hammer on this
issue until it breaks. They are already challenging Jimbo directly.

I still think a costly lawsuit is the only thing that will force change in the wiki-whore world.

Thatcher's comment on the RfAr needs to be quoted here. Once again, he's got it spot-on;
QUOTE(Thatcher @ arbcom case)
Sooner or later some smart lawyer is going to figure out he should subpoena checkusers for their private files instead of just the Foundation. Sooner or later some checkuser is going to have to fly halfway around the world to testify in a libel trial about the identification of the editor responsible for the libel. Sooner or later, someone is going to make a plausible claim that Wikimedia's common carrier immunity should be pierced, causing thousands of dollars in legal fees. If 60% agreement is not sufficient to approve a test, then it is time someone took important decisions out of the hands of (physical and intellectual) children and let the grownups take over. Thatcher 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

... and ...
QUOTE(Thatcher @ arbcom case)
Protonk, I know from my own experience that Wikipedia biographies have caused real life pain and financial damages to their subjects. We adopt changes not only because they are legally required, but because they are the moral and ethical thing to do. Thatcher 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. As an oversighter and checkuser, I can vouch for the above and have seen similar again and again and again. Working on oversight, you see the worst of BLP nonsense, and it can be soul-destroying. BTW, I'm still working on oversight for that very reason; removing egregious BLP stuff & potentially libelous nonsense.
Exactly so.

I'm dismayed at how few opposes this proposal is getting. SirFozzie's got it right, I think... a lot of people are fooled, apparently.
Kato
There's that new Arbitrator Wizardman (T-C-L-K-R-D) again who is proving himself to be a bad news addition to the line-up. He opposed flagged revisions during his election campaign - accepted the stupid case against Jimbo when the God-King endorsed Flagged Revisions, and now supports the new proposal to scupper them here:

QUOTE(Wizardman)
We have to do something to deal with BLPs and libel, this will help curb it without locking out edits for weeks at a time. Granted, Davewild's neutral does bring up a good point, it may not be ultimately as effective, since it may not cover lesser-viewe BLPs well. Wizardman 05:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


During his election, when asked whether he supported user anonymity, he replied:
QUOTE(Wizardman)

I do. There are valid reasons for keeping identities a secret, and after all, we're the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia that certain groups can edit.


So how does he balance out his need to keep his identity secret on the one hand, with his laissez-faire attitude to BLP victims on the other, and his opposition to measures that would help them?
Cedric
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sat 24th January 2009, 11:27pm) *

This is stupid. And I find it amusing that Sceptre, who BAWWWWs about his ED bio all the time, would not be in full support of Wikipedia protecting the actual bios of people who matter.

Indeed, it is stupid. Very stupid, but also very predictable. Utterly, utterly predictable.

QUOTE
This whole thing is stupid as hell. Why is the project even still open to anyone? Who was is that said something like "Open editing is a good way to start a project, but it's not a good way to finish one"? I think it was Kelly Martin. It may not be a good way to finish one, but it may end up being the reason it ends.

I don't remember if it was Kelly M or someone else that said, but I certainly agree with that view. I have already opined that it is main thing destroying Wikipedia.

QUOTE
The giant void of common sense and clue on this project has given me a headache.

Then stop bopping yourself in the head with a mallet (i.e., contributing there). Time to make good your

Image

ESCAPE FROM WIKIPEDIA
LaraLove
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 25th January 2009, 10:55am) *

Then stop bopping yourself in the head with a mallet (i.e., contributing there). Time to make good your ... ESCAPE FROM WIKIPEDIA

I know. In a real life situation of actual importance, I've been trying to convince one of my good friends to make a very necessary change in her life, and she's having trouble taking the step. This is a stupid website and I'm having the same trouble taking the step.

I told her to stop thinking about it and just jump, so to speak... I've been thinking about it for a few months. Maybe it's time I stop thinking and just jump.
Doc glasgow
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sun 25th January 2009, 4:58pm) *

QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 25th January 2009, 10:55am) *

Then stop bopping yourself in the head with a mallet (i.e., contributing there). Time to make good your ... ESCAPE FROM WIKIPEDIA

I know. In a real life situation of actual importance, I've been trying to convince one of my good friends to make a very necessary change in her life, and she's having trouble taking the step. This is a stupid website and I'm having the same trouble taking the step.

I told her to stop thinking about it and just jump, so to speak... I've been thinking about it for a few months. Maybe it's time I stop thinking and just jump.


Jumping never works, they turned you boots into rubber ones.
LaraLove
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 25th January 2009, 12:11pm) *

Jumping never works, they turned you boots into rubber ones.

Hahah, I know. That's why I went on a semi-retirement. I don't wanna be one of those bewbs that resigns and retires only to return a month later and go right back to where they were. But it just pisses me off... the project, that is. I don't see myself enjoying it again until there are some major changes, and I don't think any major change is coming.
Moulton
QUOTE(Alison @ Sun 25th January 2009, 2:18am) *
Thatcher's comment on the RfAr needs to be quoted here. Once again, he's got it spot-on;
QUOTE(Thatcher @ arbcom case)
Sooner or later some smart lawyer is going to figure out he should subpoena checkusers for their private files instead of just the Foundation. Sooner or later some checkuser is going to have to fly halfway around the world to testify in a libel trial about the identification of the editor responsible for the libel. Sooner or later, someone is going to make a plausible claim that Wikimedia's common carrier immunity should be pierced, causing thousands of dollars in legal fees. If 60% agreement is not sufficient to approve a test, then it is time someone took important decisions out of the hands of (physical and intellectual) children and let the grownups take over. Thatcher 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Both the Section 230 Immunity and the tax-exempt status of WMF are in jeopardy because of the kind of gestapo-like interventions that Cary, Jimbo, and their sycophants (e.g. Guillom and Mike Ingram) have recently engaged in. Their coordinated idiotic interventions overturn the WMF-hands off policy necessary to sustain Section 230 Immunity, while at the same time abrogating the published educational mission upon which both donor appeals and tax-exempt status rely.
Cedric
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 25th January 2009, 11:11am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sun 25th January 2009, 4:58pm) *

QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 25th January 2009, 10:55am) *

Then stop bopping yourself in the head with a mallet (i.e., contributing there). Time to make good your ... ESCAPE FROM WIKIPEDIA

I know. In a real life situation of actual importance, I've been trying to convince one of my good friends to make a very necessary change in her life, and she's having trouble taking the step. This is a stupid website and I'm having the same trouble taking the step.

I told her to stop thinking about it and just jump, so to speak... I've been thinking about it for a few months. Maybe it's time I stop thinking and just jump.


Jumping never works, they turned you boots into rubber ones.

Doc, just because you once tried and failed doesn't mean that everyone else is doomed to the same fate. I succeeded, and thousands of others have as well. In the end, it is the only mentally healthy choice left. May the spirit of Snake Plissken be with you all.
JoseClutch
QUOTE(One @ Sat 24th January 2009, 7:43pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 25th January 2009, 12:10am) *

After Jimbo's intervention, it looked like we were going to get flagged revisions on all BLPs. That seemed like a great step forward - although not nearly enough. (Flagged was never going to be a panacea, since less credible untruths (which is the really damaging stuff - as opposed to obvious vandalism and simple abuse) would end up getting reviewed sloppily and not picked up.)



However, today sees a pile on for a really really watered-down version even of this. (See here.)

This new idea will allow any autoconfirmed user to mark versions as OK. The net result will be (perhaps) to reduce obvious IP vandalism, but it does nothing to protect BLP subjects against determined detractors.

Indeed, it seems the aim is that this will simply be used on articles currently semi-protected (and NOT all BLPs). So it offers nothing at all to the BLP subject. Before, if semi-protected, the new user of IP could not edit, now IP or new user can edit in a limited way. Meanwhile, if this passes it will give the sense that the community has "done something" and set back the cause of doing anything that actually helps.

A sad day. unhappy.gif

This new proposal is an effective spoiler.


We still have the option of civil disobedience, which is how many things get done on Wikipedia.

I propose that we (that is, admins with a clue) "flag protect" every BLP to have suffered demonstrated libel for more than a few minutes. Doing this will serve two purposes: (1) it'll add more articles to the flagged universe, (2) it'll demonstrate that this is a serious problem needing a serious response.


There are one or more admins who run scripts that deprotect large numbers of articles periodically. I expect you would see the same from them on this and it would be hard to do much about without kicking up a very public stink.
One
QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Sun 25th January 2009, 6:59pm) *

There are one or more admins who run scripts that deprotect large numbers of articles periodically. I expect you would see the same from them on this and it would be hard to do much about without kicking up a very public stink.

That could be, but what I'm proposing is honestly very modest. Because this sort of protection is less onerous that semiprotection (everyone can edit), it should be spread around much more widely. If we can produce a diff showing actual defamation that persisted for more than, say, an hour, I would think that we would be so positively in the right that it would be crazy to oppose. I would be happy to take that hypothetical case to the community--or to ArbCom.

I still hope that the community discussion will produce a "compromise" with teeth. BLP flagging for non-public individuals would be a good enough compromise for me, but much less than that is manifestly immoral.


Interesting section here where someone suggests the blindingly obvious (that making all autoconfirmed users sighters is a bad idea). Then Lar says this in reply:
QUOTE
@Bigtimepeace: My issue is that despite what some supporters are saying (that this is not the only possible proposal that could be implemented), other supporters are saying this is the only proposal they would accept, and they are in advance saying they would oppose any other proposal. Which means they would block implementing a better one. This issue really has now moved beyond voting, in my view. Sorry to sound strident but it's time to do flagged revisions. By fiat if necessary, and this proposal, right now, is in the way. It is a "feel good" proposal. We need to not "feel good" about this. We need to do the right thing. The current state of BLPs is a disgrace. That's been pointed out over and over, and yet we have people saying "there is no BLP problem"!!! They are the ones that really need to get out of the way. Or be gotten out of the way, whichever. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
tarantino
QUOTE(One @ Sun 25th January 2009, 7:11pm) *


That could be, but what I'm proposing is honestly very modest. Because this sort of protection is less onerous that semiprotection (everyone can edit), it should be spread around much more widely. If we can produce a diff showing actual defamation that persisted for more than, say, an hour, I would think that we would be so positively in the right that it would be crazy to oppose. I would be happy to take that hypothetical case to the community--or to ArbCom.


Does personal preferences in vibrators count as defamation? That's been in place for 6 weeks.
Jon Awbrey
de ja vu
all over again
all over again
all over again

de ja vu
a lover again
a lover again
a lover again

de ja vu
a lover o' gain
a lover o' gain
a lover o' gain

yet another yet another yet another month long munch song much wrong
spate of same ol same ol same ol nooz 2 riddle a diddle a widdle body bout
duh oh so oh so oh so good intentions o' jimbo come to come to come to zip

and you fall for it every time …

Ja³
Kelly Martin
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sat 24th January 2009, 11:27pm) *
Who was is that said something like "Open editing is a good way to start a project, but it's not a good way to finish one"? I think it was Kelly Martin.
Yes, that was me.
One
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 25th January 2009, 7:44pm) *

Does personal preferences in vibrators count as defamation? That's been in place for 6 weeks.

That guy only had three edits to go before being autoconfirmed, too. But of course, there is no BLP problem--our RC patrol is clearly adequate, and "only" 1000 people saw it over 6 weeks.
Kelly Martin
The idea of allowing all autoconfirmed editors to select flagged revisions is idiotic.

One wonders to what extent is this "election" being influenced by professional marketers. Wikipedia is overrun with people trying to use Wikipedia to market their clients wares; Wikipedia's monitors only spot the most obvious of them, and I am quite confident that quite a number of these people have successfully risen to the level of admin.
Eva Destruction
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 25th January 2009, 8:57pm) *

The idea of allowing all autoconfirmed editors to select flagged revisions is idiotic.

One wonders to what extent is this "election" being influenced by professional marketers. Wikipedia is overrun with people trying to use Wikipedia to market their clients wares; Wikipedia's monitors only spot the most obvious of them, and I am quite confident that quite a number of these people have successfully risen to the level of admin.

(takes gasoline and throws it onto fire)

Does it matter if they've risen to admin status? Firstly, as I've said many times before, WP:COI is a meaningless policy in an anonymous culture (which in practice is virtually the entire internet and not a unique-to-Wikipedia issue; I'd bet large sums that many of the "real names" at Citizendium are nothing of the sort); secondly, since any marketer would need to maintain the appearance of neutrality to climb Wikipedia's greasy pole – and would have their edit history scrutinized by all & sundry once they made admin – that they'd probably be singularly ineffective when it came to marketing. Is "account created for marketing purposes that has to behave in a 'good' way to avoid scrutiny" any different from "account created for the sole purpose of spreading the sum of all human knowledge etc etc", as far as any reader is concerned? (I'm sure if any admin account did start plugging the products of a particular corporation, I'd be reading about it here soon enough.)
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 25th January 2009, 3:57pm) *

One wonders to what extent is this "election" being influenced by professional marketers. Wikipedia is overrun with people trying to use Wikipedia to market their clients wares; Wikipedia's monitors only spot the most obvious of them, and I am quite confident that quite a number of these people have successfully risen to the level of admin.


Shell, Pea.
Pea, Shell.

Ja³
One
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 25th January 2009, 8:57pm) *

The idea of allowing all autoconfirmed editors to select flagged revisions is idiotic.

One wonders to what extent is this "election" being influenced by professional marketers. ...

Could be.

Incidentally, I was curious about the admin support for flagged revisions, and found that it was scraping just below 75%. Also, there seem to be many more "old names" in the support column. I mean Magnus Manske? Holy hell. Yet the opposition lectures everyone about how "anyone can edit" is the meaning and purpose of Wikipedia.

In 2004, I signed up for an encyclopedia.
Achromatic
What's the bet that the anonymous (gasp) user who submitted this story to Slashdot is one of those actively trying to make waves against Flagged Revisions:
QUOTE
An anonymous reader writes "A group of powerful Wikipedia insiders are pushing for FlaggedRevisions which will require a 'trusted user' to approve of edits before they go live on the online encyclopedia. There is also opposition but with support of founder Jimbo Wales it is likely to go through. The German version has tried the system, leading to three-week delays between edit and publication. The English wiki with its higher number of anonymous editors per trusted user is expected to suffer longer queues if FlaggedRevisions is implemented on all articles. This comes just a few days after Britannica announced that readers will be allowed to suggest edits and have them reviewed within 20 minutes. Will we see the day when Britannica can be edited almost instantly while editing Wikipedia requires fighting bureaucracy, patience and the right contacts?" Note that, according to the quote from Jimmy Wales in the linked article, this system would only be used "on a subset of articles, the boundaries of which can be adjusted over time to manage the backlog."


How unsurprising. Not even the courage of their convictions to say who they are.
EricBarbour
QUOTE(One @ Sun 25th January 2009, 2:07pm) *
In 2004, I signed up for an encyclopedia.

And you got a joke. Congrats.
One
QUOTE(Achromatic @ Sun 25th January 2009, 10:11pm) *

What's the bet that the anonymous (gasp) user who submitted this story to Slashdot is one of those actively trying to make waves against Flagged Revisions:
QUOTE
An anonymous reader writes "A group of powerful Wikipedia insiders are pushing for FlaggedRevisions which will require a 'trusted user' to approve of edits before they go live on the online encyclopedia. There is also opposition but with support of founder Jimbo Wales it is likely to go through. The German version has tried the system, leading to three-week delays between edit and publication. The English wiki with its higher number of anonymous editors per trusted user is expected to suffer longer queues if FlaggedRevisions is implemented on all articles. This comes just a few days after Britannica announced that readers will be allowed to suggest edits and have them reviewed within 20 minutes. Will we see the day when Britannica can be edited almost instantly while editing Wikipedia requires fighting bureaucracy, patience and the right contacts?" Note that, according to the quote from Jimmy Wales in the linked article, this system would only be used "on a subset of articles, the boundaries of which can be adjusted over time to manage the backlog."


How unsurprising. Not even the courage of their convictions to say who they are.

This is FUD. 98% of the articles on German Wikipedia are up to date, and they're flagging 800,000 articles (more than 300,000 BLPs, and with fewer editors).

Ah, here's a good comment:
QUOTE(Anonymous from Slashdot)
The overwhelmingly majority of edits to the German Wikipedia are flagged within seconds.

However, the single oldest non-reviewed or reverted change will often be a few weeks old. This is usually because someone made a large edit with a mixture of good and terrible changes, so no one wants to either sight it or revert it⦠so the draft hangs around awhile until someone improves it enough to justify publishing it, or until someone finally decides its crap and removes the change.

Under the old system edits like this, ones which were of mixed quality, were quickly undone. The new system is much better at conserving the users work.

Of course, everyone can see the latest draft version: There is a big banner that tells you the the version you are viewing is not the latest.

I think it has been an enormous improvement.
Eva Destruction
QUOTE(One @ Sun 25th January 2009, 10:07pm) *

Incidentally, I was curious about the admin support for flagged revisions, and found that it was scraping just below 75%. Also, there seem to be many more "old names" in the support column. I mean Magnus Manske? Holy hell. Yet the opposition lectures everyone about how "anyone can edit" is the meaning and purpose of Wikipedia.

In 2004, I signed up for an encyclopedia.

I for one signed up as "support" purely because, while I expect it to be a time-consuming failure, I'd rather get the trial out of the way so (a) I'm proved wrong and it turns out to work, or (b) people can see for themselves that it's not going to be the miracle cure its boosters are claiming, and we can get down to what we should have done in the first place and start looking at a workable system of permanent semiprotection and deletion-on-request for figures of relatively minor notability. Don't assume that all those "support" votes are actually in favor of it.
One
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sun 25th January 2009, 10:22pm) *

I for one signed up as "support" purely because, while I expect it to be a time-consuming failure, I'd rather get the trial out of the way so (a) I'm proved wrong and it turns out to work, or (b) people can see for themselves that it's not going to be the miracle cure its boosters are claiming, and we can get down to what we should have done in the first place and start looking at a workable system of permanent semiprotection and deletion-on-request for figures of relatively minor notability. Don't assume that all those "support" votes are actually in favor of it.


I didn't make that assumption; I did read the comments. There are also supports who want to try it so that it fails and we can return to doing a whole lotta nothing. At the least, these are not people who hold "everyone can edit" sacred. Most of the opposition does.
UseOnceAndDestroy
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sun 25th January 2009, 5:32pm) *

Hahah, I know. That's why I went on a semi-retirement. I don't wanna be one of those bewbs that resigns and retires only to return a month later and go right back to where they were.

I guess that's what the wikipedia retirement ritual is all about - discouraging you from making that jump. Putting that template up is all so terribly dramatic and final and embarrassing if you change your mind. And its a bat-signal for a sudden retinue of love-bombers to come and beg you not to jump.

Here's a thought - people wishing to get out might try not announcing anything. Just stop logging in.



LaraLove
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Sun 25th January 2009, 8:12pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sun 25th January 2009, 5:32pm) *

Hahah, I know. That's why I went on a semi-retirement. I don't wanna be one of those bewbs that resigns and retires only to return a month later and go right back to where they were.

I guess that's what the wikipedia retirement ritual is all about - discouraging you from making that jump. Putting that template up is all so terribly dramatic and final and embarrassing if you change your mind. And its a bat-signal for a sudden retinue of love-bombers to come and beg you not to jump.

Here's a thought - people wishing to get out might try not announcing anything. Just stop logging in.

I hate when people do that. I'd rather detail why the hell I've decided to peace out, for those who've been sleeping while I bitch, and leave some comments for some peeps, fully protect my talk page to keep the kids from begging, and have all that there as a little extra persuasion to stay away. In fact, I think that's what I'll do now.
Giggy
QUOTE(One @ Mon 26th January 2009, 8:07am) *

Incidentally, I was curious about the admin support for flagged revisions, and found that it was scraping just below 75%. Also, there seem to be many more "old names" in the support column. I mean Magnus Manske? Holy hell. Yet the opposition lectures everyone about how "anyone can edit" is the meaning and purpose of Wikipedia.

After taking a quick glance at the list, I'd be interested in seeing a list of regular IRC users and where they stand...

(only semi joking)
LaraLove
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 26th January 2009, 12:57am) *

QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Sun 25th January 2009, 8:12pm) *

Here's a thought - people wishing to get out might try not announcing anything. Just stop logging in.

I hate when people do that. I'd rather detail why the hell I've decided to peace out, for those who've been sleeping while I bitch, and leave some comments for some peeps, fully protect my talk page to keep the kids from begging, and have all that there as a little extra persuasion to stay away. In fact, I think that's what I'll do now.

Eff it. I'm out. Felt good. Hope the withdrawal isn't too bad.
maggot3
QUOTE(Giggy @ Mon 26th January 2009, 6:30am) *

After taking a quick glance at the list, I'd be interested in seeing a list of regular IRC users and where they stand...

(only semi joking)


in terms of wikipedia-en, pretty much all the names i can think of are opposing it

it's pretty depressing
Lar
QUOTE(maggot3 @ Mon 26th January 2009, 3:05am) *

QUOTE(Giggy @ Mon 26th January 2009, 6:30am) *

After taking a quick glance at the list, I'd be interested in seeing a list of regular IRC users and where they stand...

(only semi joking)


in terms of wikipedia-en, pretty much all the names i can think of are opposing it

it's pretty depressing

What does that tell you?
JoseClutch
QUOTE(maggot3 @ Mon 26th January 2009, 3:05am) *

QUOTE(Giggy @ Mon 26th January 2009, 6:30am) *

After taking a quick glance at the list, I'd be interested in seeing a list of regular IRC users and where they stand...

(only semi joking)


in terms of wikipedia-en, pretty much all the names i can think of are opposing it

it's pretty depressing

I am pretty sure you did not need to look to know this. It is very much a "the encyclopedia writers versus the MMORPGers" debate.
tarantino
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 26th January 2009, 7:37am) *

Eff it. I'm out. Felt good. Hope the withdrawal isn't too bad.


You made the right choice.

Now demonstrating the 3rd law of wikidynamics is Rootology, who has scrambled his WR password and is running for admin.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rootology
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 26th January 2009, 7:37am) *

Eff it. I'm out. Felt good. Hope the withdrawal isn't too bad.


Put the Lime in the Coconut and go see Old Doc Kohs.

You'll be amazed how much more productive you can be working on a site with adult supervision.

QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 26th January 2009, 2:16pm) *

You made the right choice.

Now demonstrating the 3rd law of wikidynamics is Rootology, who has scrambled his WR password and is running for admin.


Like we're all so surprised —

But it's more like the 2nd law —

Suckin up e-tropy the way 'e did and yer brain cant help but e-trophy in the end — Ouch!

Ja³
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.