Feedback and beta-testing from non-Wikipedia projects

[Luiz Augusto]

(sorry for my English and for the crossposting)

I known that the FlaggedRevs extension is under a review stage and their
development is devoted basically to the needs from the most known Wikimedia
project. This is ok to me, no worries on it. But since more Wikimedia
projects have users watching the development of this feature, I think that
only two future official wikis for the public beta testing is insufficient.

Wikisource, for example, have LabeledSectionTransclusion and ProofreadPage
enabled on all of yours wikis. These extensions may have issues to work
appropriately with FlaggedRevs. Enabling these two extensions at the same
wiki devoted to the English Wikipedia beta-testing may generate some
troubles with the en.wp users that don't known how and why Wikisource have
these extensions, to exemplify with only one of the possible reactions. Not
enabling these two extensions + FlaggedRevs at someplace may create false
hopes. And I think that knowing that issues and waiting for someone with the
required skills to fix them when get time to work on it is more proper
instead of a community (a Wikisource wiki) gaining consensus to request
FlaggedRevs getting enabled and finding that a new nice feature brokes another
one.

[[:m:User:555]]

[Daniel Cannon]

Post by Luiz Augusto
(sorry for my English and for the crossposting)
I known that the FlaggedRevs extension is under a review stage and their
development is devoted basically to the needs from the most known
Wikimedia project. This is ok to me, no worries on it. But since more
Wikimedia projects have users watching the development of this feature,
I think that only two future official wikis for the public beta testing
is insufficient.
Wikisource, for example, have LabeledSectionTransclusion and
ProofreadPage enabled on all of yours wikis. These extensions may have
issues to work appropriately with FlaggedRevs. Enabling these two
extensions at the same wiki devoted to the English Wikipedia
beta-testing may generate some troubles with the en.wp users that don't
known how and why Wikisource have these extensions, to exemplify with
only one of the possible reactions. Not enabling these two extensions +
FlaggedRevs at someplace may create false hopes. And I think that
knowing that issues and waiting for someone with the required skills to
fix them when get time to work on it is more proper instead of a
community (a Wikisource wiki) gaining consensus to request FlaggedRevs
getting enabled and finding that a new nice feature brokes another one.
[[:m:User:555]]

If you can get me a list of configurations that you would like to test,
I'll be glad to set up a mini Wikifarm on my server. They won't be
"official" showcase wikis but should allow individuals such as yourself
to experiment with and attempt to find bugs in the configuration.

- --
Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)

http://amidaniel.com
cannon.danielc-***@public.gmane.org

[P. Birken]

That sounds like a great idea. I fear that using additional official
Betatests would lead to a worse test, becauses ressources are
distributed too much. However, I think that flagged revisions are very
well suited for the needs of for example WikiSource or WikiNews and am
therefore rather happy if the needs of these communities can be
adressed.

Bye,

Philipp

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Luiz Augusto
(sorry for my English and for the crossposting)
I known that the FlaggedRevs extension is under a review stage and their
development is devoted basically to the needs from the most known
Wikimedia project. This is ok to me, no worries on it. But since more
Wikimedia projects have users watching the development of this feature,
I think that only two future official wikis for the public beta testing
is insufficient.
Wikisource, for example, have LabeledSectionTransclusion and
ProofreadPage enabled on all of yours wikis. These extensions may have
issues to work appropriately with FlaggedRevs. Enabling these two
extensions at the same wiki devoted to the English Wikipedia
beta-testing may generate some troubles with the en.wp users that don't
known how and why Wikisource have these extensions, to exemplify with
only one of the possible reactions. Not enabling these two extensions +
FlaggedRevs at someplace may create false hopes. And I think that
knowing that issues and waiting for someone with the required skills to
fix them when get time to work on it is more proper instead of a
community (a Wikisource wiki) gaining consensus to request FlaggedRevs
getting enabled and finding that a new nice feature brokes another one.
[[:m:User:555]]

If you can get me a list of configurations that you would like to test,
I'll be glad to set up a mini Wikifarm on my server. They won't be
"official" showcase wikis but should allow individuals such as yourself
to experiment with and attempt to find bugs in the configuration.
- --
Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
http://amidaniel.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHEsEqFRAT5u/mSaMRAi2wAKCnWNxrPJ+14/NKtWzRuChKbPRh6QCgqKne
/OcyEPddzHNH+4kr+jY9G/E=
=kERv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l

[t***@public.gmane.org]

Flaggedrevs had been designed with Wikipedia in mind.
Writing an encyclopedy article is about confronting multiple
points of view. During this process, the quality of
an article might not always improve; the purpose of
Flaggedrevs is to flag some revisions as "non draft",
while still allowing users to modify the article.

I do not think that this would be useful for Wikisource.
A decrease of quality on a wikisource article can be
agreed upon in a much more objective way. Introducing
flaggedrevs will likely result on confusion and useless
complexity.

(I am not even sure if Flaggedrevs will solve the problems
faced by wikipedia; once the community know what it really
is about, they might realize technology does not replace
expertise...)




-------- Original-Nachricht --------

Datum: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:39:04 -0300
Betreff: [Wikisource-l] Feedback and beta-testing from non-Wikipedia projects
(sorry for my English and for the crossposting)
I known that the FlaggedRevs extension is under a review stage and their
development is devoted basically to the needs from the most known
Wikimedia
project. This is ok to me, no worries on it. But since more Wikimedia
projects have users watching the development of this feature, I think that
only two future official wikis for the public beta testing is
insufficient.
Wikisource, for example, have LabeledSectionTransclusion and ProofreadPage
enabled on all of yours wikis. These extensions may have issues to work
appropriately with FlaggedRevs. Enabling these two extensions at the same
wiki devoted to the English Wikipedia beta-testing may generate some
troubles with the en.wp users that don't known how and why Wikisource have
these extensions, to exemplify with only one of the possible reactions.
Not
enabling these two extensions + FlaggedRevs at someplace may create false
hopes. And I think that knowing that issues and waiting for someone with
the
required skills to fix them when get time to work on it is more proper
instead of a community (a Wikisource wiki) gaining consensus to request
FlaggedRevs getting enabled and finding that a new nice feature brokes
another
one.
[[:m:User:555]]

[d***@public.gmane.org]

<snip>
(I am not even sure if Flaggedrevs will solve the problems
faced by wikipedia; once the community know what it really
is about, they might realize technology does not replace
expertise...)

Flaggedrevs is a temporary fix for human stupidity.

[Daniel Arnold]

Post by t***@public.gmane.org
Flaggedrevs had been designed with Wikipedia in mind.
Writing an encyclopedy article is about confronting multiple
points of view. During this process, the quality of
an article might not always improve; the purpose of
Flaggedrevs is to flag some revisions as "non draft",
while still allowing users to modify the article.

FlaggedRevs is being pursued mainly by Wikipedians but is has been designed
very flexible (see the very first posts by P. Birken and Erik in the list
archive).

Your use case "several authors with different points of views editing an
article" is only one possible use case and even not the most important one we
are targetting at right now.

Once again: The basic feature of FlaggedRevs (every user above a certain
automatic threshold can flag an article version as "non vandalized") provides
*nothing* against POV and edit wars among editors. It just helps against
random vandalism ("Peter P. is gay"), some kinds of spam and slashdotting of
certain articles.

There are stricter levels of flagging in this system such as the "reviewed"
flag. Only editors in the reviewer group (a user group appointed by the
bureaucrats) are able to flag an article version as reviewed. It is suggested
that the first group of these reviewers are academic experts of their
subject.

However all these flags (number, name), levels (how fine grained), rights (who
is allowed to set which flag) and display (what to show to the reader) are
highly customizable by the site admin and adaptable for many needs.

Post by t***@public.gmane.org
I do not think that this would be useful for Wikisource.
A decrease of quality on a wikisource article can be
agreed upon in a much more objective way. Introducing
flaggedrevs will likely result on confusion and useless
complexity.

Quite the contrary FlaggedRevs will be particular useful for Wikisource and
Wikinews. Currently it is really a pitty to write protect an article within
these projects after they are completed. This makes it extremly hard to
maintain these articles, such as removing/renaming images (very frequent
problem of Commons admins) and adjusting category and template stuff.

With FlaggedRevs you don't need a write protection anylonger in these cases. A
group of appointed people in Wikisource could flag an article as "ready" and
every anon reader would see the last flagged version by default. On the other
side other people can freely edit these pages and changes such as maintenance
tasks can be done by everyone and from time to time a reviewer can stop by
and look if these changes were ok or not and could flag them.

This would dramatically improve the work flow of Wikisource and Wikinews which
is sadly quite closed after a certain time at the moment.

Post by t***@public.gmane.org
(I am not even sure if Flaggedrevs will solve the problems
faced by wikipedia; once the community know what it really
is about, they might realize technology does not replace
expertise...)

None expects FlaggedRevs to be the magic solution (again see the very first
posts). FlaggedRevs is an assistant technology meant to help editors
focussing on the really hard cases (and not so much on lame random vandalism
like now).

Arnomane