So what does Flagged Revs feel like?

[David Gerard-2]

If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
- check the history. I'm not an admin or reviewer on en:wn.

What did it feel like? Curiously unsatisfying. The fix not going live
immediately left me wondering just when it would - five minutes/? An
hour? A day? It felt nothing like editing a wiki - it felt like I'd
submitted a form to a completely opaque bureaucracy for review at
their leisure.

Don't take my word for it - go typo-fixing on Wikinews and tell me how
it feels to you.

So, yeah. I remain a big fan of flagged revisions for those times when
we need it - basically, as a less-worse alternative to protection or
semiprotection. But it really does kill the wiki motivational buzz
dead.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Judson Dunn-2]

Yes, I sincerely hope that we don't use it more than we use protection
now. That's the promise we've all been making outside the community
for a long time, I don't think we should prove the reporters right. :)

Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ian Woollard]

On 26/09/2009, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:

> If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
> position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
> - check the history. I'm not an admin or reviewer on en:wn.
>
> What did it feel like? Curiously unsatisfying. The fix not going live
> immediately left me wondering just when it would - five minutes/? An
> hour? A day? It felt nothing like editing a wiki - it felt like I'd
> submitted a form to a completely opaque bureaucracy for review at
> their leisure.

Yes, I did that a while back. I suspect it's worse for a news site
though; I wrote an item for it, and then it was up for checking, but
they didn't allow it to go live due to trivial formatting issues I was
able to fix in a few minutes. It then got held in limbo for another
day while I waited for it to be revetted, then they rejected it again,
another couple of minutes of fixing and then after *another* day, it
went live.

And this is supposed to be a news site.

Frankly, I haven't gone back.

I think it will work a lot better on wikipedia though; it's not the
same type of site.

> - d.

--
-Ian Woollard

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:
> What did it feel like? Curiously unsatisfying. The fix not going live
> immediately left me wondering just when it would - five minutes/? An
> hour? A day? It felt nothing like editing a wiki - it felt like I'd
> submitted a form to a completely opaque bureaucracy for review at
> their leisure.

David, you very well know these problems are easily solved:

1) Put up with FR for a few months
2) Rack up clean edits
3) Apply for adminship
4) Get past it's politicized voting process...

...and you're set.

- Stevertigo
No wiki-crack for you.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/26 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:

> If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
> position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
> - check the history. I'm not an admin or reviewer on en:wn.
>
> What did it feel like? Curiously unsatisfying. The fix not going live
> immediately left me wondering just when it would - five minutes/? An
> hour? A day? It felt nothing like editing a wiki - it felt like I'd
> submitted a form to a completely opaque bureaucracy for review at
> their leisure.
>
> Don't take my word for it - go typo-fixing on Wikinews and tell me how
> it feels to you.
>
> So, yeah. I remain a big fan of flagged revisions for those times when
> we need it - basically, as a less-worse alternative to protection or
> semiprotection. But it really does kill the wiki motivational buzz
> dead.

I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
backlog builds up and it takes a few minutes for people to realise and
work through it), then we have failed. If we can have every single
article on flagged revs and still keep on top of them, then we should
do that. If we can't, then we should keep it to just a small number of
articles that really need it.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>:

> I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
> keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
> minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
> backlog builds up and it takes a few minutes for people to realise and
> work through it), then we have failed. If we can have every single
> article on flagged revs and still keep on top of them, then we should
> do that. If we can't, then we should keep it to just a small number of
> articles that really need it.


de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
editing dead.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

I've just been looking at these statistics:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:ValidationStatistics

The median time for review is nice and small, but the average is lot
higher and the average lag is even higher - that means there are a
small number of reviews taking far too long (in fact, about 10% take
more than an hour) but most are being done nice and fast. I don't know
the reason for that, but one possible explanation is that people are
just reviewing edits they see while doing other things rather than
actually going through the list of out-dated articles in order from
oldest to newest. I think those stats are for both "sighted" and
"quality" reviews, so I'm not quite sure which reviews are taking a
long time, but sighting an edit shouldn't require any knowledge of the
article, so doing them in order seems the best option.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Brian J Mingus]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>wrote:

> 2009/9/26 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:
> > If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
> > position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
> >
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
> > - check the history. I'm not an admin or reviewer on en:wn.
> >
> > What did it feel like? Curiously unsatisfying. The fix not going live
> > immediately left me wondering just when it would - five minutes/? An
> > hour? A day? It felt nothing like editing a wiki - it felt like I'd
> > submitted a form to a completely opaque bureaucracy for review at
> > their leisure.
> >
> > Don't take my word for it - go typo-fixing on Wikinews and tell me how
> > it feels to you.
> >
> > So, yeah. I remain a big fan of flagged revisions for those times when
> > we need it - basically, as a less-worse alternative to protection or
> > semiprotection. But it really does kill the wiki motivational buzz
> > dead.
>
> I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
> keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
> minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
> backlog builds up and it takes a few minutes for people to realise and
> work through it), then we have failed. If we can have every single
> article on flagged revs and still keep on top of them, then we should
> do that. If we can't, then we should keep it to just a small number of
> articles that really need it.
>
>

I strongly agree with this. We should view our ability to flag-lock articles
as a resource which is limited by the number of editors that are able to
sustainably review such edits. As long as we are able to handle the edits in
near real time we haven't over-sold/over-extended our capacity. Anything
like the experience others are describing in this thread is probably
(hopefully...) going to be found unacceptable by Wikipedia.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/26 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:

> 2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>:
>
>> I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
>> keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
>> minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
>> backlog builds up and it takes a few minutes for people to realise and
>> work through it), then we have failed. If we can have every single
>> article on flagged revs and still keep on top of them, then we should
>> do that. If we can't, then we should keep it to just a small number of
>> articles that really need it.
>
>
> de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
> enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
> editing dead.

No, IMO they have failed. It should be literally 100% of edits reviews
in 5 minutes the vast majority of the time. I would set a target of
the lag on Special:OldReviewedPages should be less than 5 minutes 99%
of the time. If we fail to reach that target, we need to reduce the
number of articles we are using the extension on. I really think that
is achievable though, even with every article included - we already
have RC-patrollers checking most edits within a few minutes and this
extension would make it much easier to avoid duplicate effort. Do any
of the vandal-fighter tools (like Huggle) handle working through the
OldReviewedPages in order? (We need New Page patrollers to make sure
every new page gets its first review very quickly - they are usually
good at keeping on top of new pages.)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>:
> 2009/9/26 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:

>> de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
>> enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
>> editing dead.

> No, IMO they have failed. It should be literally 100% of edits reviews
> in 5 minutes the vast majority of the time. I would set a target of
> the lag on Special:OldReviewedPages should be less than 5 minutes 99%
> of the time. If we fail to reach that target, we need to reduce the
> number of articles we are using the extension on. I really think that
> is achievable though, even with every article included - we already
> have RC-patrollers checking most edits within a few minutes and this
> extension would make it much easier to avoid duplicate effort. Do any
> of the vandal-fighter tools (like Huggle) handle working through the
> OldReviewedPages in order? (We need New Page patrollers to make sure
> every new page gets its first review very quickly - they are usually
> good at keeping on top of new pages.)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Markierungsstatistik

Those numbers would be a disaster. This I think is why the trial is so limited.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[The Cunctator]

The problem is that one of the fundamental rules of interactive design is
that anything less than real time feedback is profoundly disorienting. To
some degree that can be ameliorated if once someone submitted a flagged
revision some kind of counter appears immediately that lets them know their
revision will be checked within x minutes. (and if, say it isn't checked by
then the editor is told that people are being notified of the failure of the
system.)

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>wrote:

> 2009/9/26 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:
> > 2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>:
> >
> >> I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
> >> keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
> >> minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
> >> backlog builds up and it takes a few minutes for people to realise and
> >> work through it), then we have failed. If we can have every single
> >> article on flagged revs and still keep on top of them, then we should
> >> do that. If we can't, then we should keep it to just a small number of
> >> articles that really need it.
> >
> >
> > de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
> > enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
> > editing dead.
>
> No, IMO they have failed. It should be literally 100% of edits reviews
> in 5 minutes the vast majority of the time. I would set a target of
> the lag on Special:OldReviewedPages should be less than 5 minutes 99%
> of the time. If we fail to reach that target, we need to reduce the
> number of articles we are using the extension on. I really think that
> is achievable though, even with every article included - we already
> have RC-patrollers checking most edits within a few minutes and this
> extension would make it much easier to avoid duplicate effort. Do any
> of the vandal-fighter tools (like Huggle) handle working through the
> OldReviewedPages in order? (We need New Page patrollers to make sure
> every new page gets its first review very quickly - they are usually
> good at keeping on top of new pages.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Gray-3]

2009/9/26 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:

> de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
> enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
> editing dead.

Doesn't dewiki have an installed-everywhere version of flagged
revisions, though? That's almost a million article pages - even with a
massive proliferation of flagged-protection, there's not going to be
anywhere near that order of magnitude on the enwiki implementation.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Risker]

>
> <snip>



> (We need New Page patrollers to make sure
> every new page gets its first review very quickly - they are usually
> good at keeping on top of new pages.)
>
> _
>
Given that New Page Patrol is constantly at a backlog of between 27-30 days
(that is, there are always a significant number of new pages of that age),
while at the same time we have problems with new pages being patrolled *too
quickly* and CSD'd within 2 minutes, I think we will see the same issue with
flagged revisions: that is, some edits being quickly passed without proper
review, allowing sneaky vandalism in, while others take so long to be
reviewed it takes away the wiki flavour.

On the other hand, it might be a very different way of managing edit
warring.

Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/26 The Cunctator <cunctator@...>:
> The problem is that one of the fundamental rules of interactive design is
> that anything less than real time feedback is profoundly disorienting. To
> some degree that can be ameliorated if once someone submitted a flagged
> revision some kind of counter appears immediately that lets them know their
> revision will be checked within x minutes. (and if, say it isn't checked by
> then the editor is told that people are being notified of the failure of the
> system.)

I would like that - a notice saying that most edits are reviewed
within 5 minutes and then, in the event of a failure, a automated
message on the talk page apologising. Good idea.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/26 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Markierungsstatistik
>
> Those numbers would be a disaster. This I think is why the trial is so limited.

5% of edits taking more that FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE HOURS EIGHT
MINUTES AND FIFTY FIVE SECONDS?! That is unforgivable, even with every
article included. They either have too strict criteria for sighting so
too many people say "Oh, I'm not sure/don't have time to work that
out, I'll leave it to someone else" or people aren't working through
the backlog in order.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
> 5% of edits taking more that FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE HOURS EIGHT
> MINUTES AND FIFTY FIVE SECONDS?! That is unforgivable, even with every
> article included. They either have too strict criteria for sighting so
> too many people say "Oh, I'm not sure/don't have time to work that
> out, I'll leave it to someone else" or people aren't working through
> the backlog in order.

Um... Hm. The words "unaccepable" and "unfogiveable" only entered the
lexicon after the Siegenthaller meteorite impacted and wiped out all
notions that "collaboration," "consensus," and "wikilove" were
sufficient.

The fact of the matter was then, remains so, and will remain so, that
some articles are just not as notable, and therefore won't get seen
and won't get checked on anyone's schedule.** There is no issue of
"unforgivability' involved at all, even if we can say that there is a
serious issue of "unacceptability."

And even then, the focus on BLP articles comes not from a general
appreciation for 'reliability,' but from a practical need to focus on
people that can write editorials, a logical limitation on the usage of
the "unacceptability" as a whip, and a healthy fear of 'let's not get
our assets sued.'

- Stevertigo
** Techs: A script to list unviewed articles based on time. Ie. 'it's
been 1y2m16d since the [[Newsmodel]] article has been checked for sex
appeal.'

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

PPCD:

stevertigo <stvrtg@...> wrote:

- and "unfogiveable" only entered
+and "unforgiveable" only entered

- but from a practical need to focus on people that can write editorials,
+but from a logical need to focus on people that can write editorials,

-a logical limitation on the usage of the "unacceptability" as a whip
+a practical limitation on the usage of the "unacceptability" as a whip

- Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[The Cunctator]

Your edits have been submitted for review.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg@...> wrote:

> PPCD:
>
> stevertigo <stvrtg@...> wrote:
>
> - and "unfogiveable" only entered
> +and "unforgiveable" only entered
>
> - but from a practical need to focus on people that can write editorials,
> +but from a logical need to focus on people that can write editorials,
>
> -a logical limitation on the usage of the "unacceptability" as a whip
> +a practical limitation on the usage of the "unacceptability" as a whip
>
> - Stevertigo
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/26 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
> The fact of the matter was then, remains so, and will remain so, that
> some articles are just not as notable, and therefore won't get seen
> and won't get checked on anyone's schedule.** There is no issue of
> "unforgivability' involved at all, even if we can say that there is a
> serious issue of "unacceptability."

I disagree. I don't see why notability should be a factor. People
should review edits in chronological order (for sighting, anyway -
quality is different matter entirely). RC patrollers on enwiki don't
pick and choose which edits to review, and I can't see why dewiki
would be any different. Flagging revisions should just be a slightly
different (and more efficient) way of doing RC patrol.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ian Woollard]

On 26/09/2009, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:
> de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
> enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
> editing dead.

You'd think so, but that's not what the german statistics say- the
anonymous still edit at about the same rate.

You'd also think that there would be a reduction in vandalism, but
that's also not what the statistics say; the vandals don't seem to
notice.

> - d.

--
-Ian Woollard

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l