Change of Settings?

[P. Birken]

Hi,

during the last discussions, some misunderstandings have occured due
to the fact, that the current setting is rather abstract. Also, some
members of the german community approached me and said: "wait a
minute, that's not what we wanted." So, maybe we could change the
setting for a few days so that we have the situation from the german
proposal? This might also show whether the more flexible
implementation does indeed work for the more specialized setting.

I first ask this here, because I don't want to delay development by
this request. So if you want to implement something that requires the
more flexible setting with three tags and additional dimensions there
in the next fews days, please just say so.

Bye,

Philipp

[Erik Moeller]

I suggest this be done on a separate wiki - this is in line with the
eventual setup I'd like to see for <quality.wikipedia.org> as per my
mail to internal, i.e. multiple configurations for people to try out.

The most important thing we have to get right is the vandalism-only
review. Some wikis will probably be configured _only_ on that level.

Post by P. Birken
Hi,
during the last discussions, some misunderstandings have occured due
to the fact, that the current setting is rather abstract. Also, some
members of the german community approached me and said: "wait a
minute, that's not what we wanted." So, maybe we could change the
setting for a few days so that we have the situation from the german
proposal? This might also show whether the more flexible
implementation does indeed work for the more specialized setting.
I first ask this here, because I don't want to delay development by
this request. So if you want to implement something that requires the
more flexible setting with three tags and additional dimensions there
in the next fews days, please just say so.
Bye,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l

[P. Birken]

Post by Erik Moeller
I suggest this be done on a separate wiki - this is in line with the
eventual setup I'd like to see for <quality.wikipedia.org> as per my
mail to internal, i.e. multiple configurations for people to try out.

The reason I'm suggesting this to be done on the current wiki is, that
we are all there and the discussions have shown, that it is not only
outsiders, but also discussions on this list that could benefit from a
change of settings.

Post by Erik Moeller
The most important thing we have to get right is the vandalism-only
review. Some wikis will probably be configured _only_ on that level.

I completely agree. Point is, in the current setting, I do not see us
working on that.

Bye,

Philipp

[Joerg Baach]

Post by P. Birken

Post by Erik Moeller
The most important thing we have to get right is the vandalism-only
review. Some wikis will probably be configured _only_ on that level.

I completely agree. Point is, in the current setting, I do not see us
working on that.

Ok, just to clarify: should the setting be either one-dimensional:

* nothing
* sighted
* examined

or two dimensional:

*nothing
* sighted

*nothing
*examined

?

Cheers,

Joerg

[Mathias Schindler]

While sighted/examined do not have a common workflow, I cannot think
of any examined article that does not fulfill the criterium of
sighted. Therefor, one could declare it to be one-dimensional.

[Joerg Baach]

Post by Mathias Schindler
While sighted/examined do not have a common workflow, I cannot think
of any examined article that does not fulfill the criterium of
sighted. Therefor, one could declare it to be one-dimensional.

Something along the line of:

http://www.baach.de/phase3de

?

Cheers,

Joerg

[P. Birken]

Post by Joerg Baach

Post by Mathias Schindler
While sighted/examined do not have a common workflow, I cannot think
of any examined article that does not fulfill the criterium of
sighted. Therefor, one could declare it to be one-dimensional.

http://www.baach.de/phase3de
?

Thanks!

I believe I see a problem with one dimension.

Assume that an older version is set on examined, a younger version on
sighted. Then, we would want to show the reader the sighted version,
but tell him that there is an older examined one.

This obviously works with two dimensions, but does it too with one?

Bye,

Philipp

[Aaron Schulz]

OK, I don't like the idea of reducing all of the tags to just one, it still
useful to have a depth/style rating, or any others. The idea is that sighted
revisions are just at minimal quality in each type.

The schema has been changed quite a bit, though I think I am satisfied with
how it is now.

The basic idea of a sighted level, and an expert reviewed level is still
enforced, the tags are for sorting what falls into "sighted" and "expert" on
reviewer. If new dimensions are added to the site later on, sighted and
expert reviewed revisions still behave as they did.

Expert reviewed revisions take precedence over sighted revisions.

By default we have the following classification:

*quality (expert reviewed): accuracy >= 2, depth >= 1, style >=1
*stable (sighted): accuracy >=1, depth >= 1, style >=1

Revisions cannot be reviewed unless each tag type is at least at level 1.
Reviewed revisions should at least be decent in each category, otherwise
reviewing them would look bad.

The Editor group is autoassigned (though it can be removed manually and will
not be auto added again). The reviewer right must be done manually, as it
gives full access. This is done through Special:Makevalidate. By defaut,
emailconfirmed editors with 1000 edits, here for 60 days, are promoted to
editors automatically. Any user can be manually promoted sooner.

<html><div><FONT color=#3333cc>-Jason Schulz</FONT></div></html>

_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage refinance is Hot. *Terms. Get a 5.375%* fix rate. Check savings
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h2bbb&disc=y&vers=925&s=4056&p=5117

[P. Birken]

Hiho

Post by Aaron Schulz
OK, I don't like the idea of reducing all of the tags to just one, it still
useful to have a depth/style rating, or any others. The idea is that sighted
revisions are just at minimal quality in each type.
The schema has been changed quite a bit, though I think I am satisfied with
how it is now.

Yes, that looks logically sound and like it will work.

Post by Aaron Schulz
Expert reviewed revisions take precedence over sighted revisions.

Could you explain this?

Post by Aaron Schulz
*quality (expert reviewed): accuracy >= 2, depth >= 1, style >=1
*stable (sighted): accuracy >=1, depth >= 1, style >=1
Revisions cannot be reviewed unless each tag type is at least at level 1.
Reviewed revisions should at least be decent in each category, otherwise
reviewing them would look bad.

That would work, though I have problems imagining articles that fail
accuracy and depth 1.

I also thought that we might use this system to replace "Neutrality"-
or other tags. This would certainly improve things in the way that
editwars over these tags no longer disturb the version history.
However, replacing this with tagging wars is only a slight
improvement. Studid idea?

Bye,

Philipp

[Aaron Schulz]

When I say "precedence", I mean that if there is an examined and a mere
stable version for page, the examined one is the default page. If that
revision is depreciated/deleted, then the stable version would then be the
default.

As for the oddness at http://www.baach.de/phase3de/index.php/Chemiker, the
tags seem to be misconfigured there, as accuracy 1 counts as quality.

I'd stick to using http://www.baach.de/phase3/index.php.

<html><div><FONT color=#3333cc>-Jason Schulz</FONT></div></html>

Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Clearify some things
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:09:19 +0200
Hiho

Post by Aaron Schulz
OK, I don't like the idea of reducing all of the tags to just one, it

still

Post by Aaron Schulz
useful to have a depth/style rating, or any others. The idea is that

sighted

Post by Aaron Schulz
revisions are just at minimal quality in each type.
The schema has been changed quite a bit, though I think I am satisfied

with

Post by Aaron Schulz
how it is now.

Yes, that looks logically sound and like it will work.

Post by Aaron Schulz
Expert reviewed revisions take precedence over sighted revisions.

Could you explain this?

Post by Aaron Schulz
*quality (expert reviewed): accuracy >= 2, depth >= 1, style >=1
*stable (sighted): accuracy >=1, depth >= 1, style >=1
Revisions cannot be reviewed unless each tag type is at least at level

1.

Post by Aaron Schulz
Reviewed revisions should at least be decent in each category, otherwise
reviewing them would look bad.

That would work, though I have problems imagining articles that fail
accuracy and depth 1.
I also thought that we might use this system to replace "Neutrality"-
or other tags. This would certainly improve things in the way that
editwars over these tags no longer disturb the version history.
However, replacing this with tagging wars is only a slight
improvement. Studid idea?
Bye,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l

_________________________________________________________________
Interest Rates NEAR 39yr LOWS! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,299/mo - Calculate
new payment
http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-19132&moid=14888

[Joerg Baach]

Post by Aaron Schulz
As for the oddness at http://www.baach.de/phase3de/index.php/Chemiker, the
tags seem to be misconfigured there, as accuracy 1 counts as quality.

Changed to:

$wgFlaggedRevTags = array( 'accuracy'=>2);

Cheers,

Joerg

[R. S. Shaw]

Post by Aaron Schulz
When I say "precedence", I mean that if there is an examined and a mere
stable version for page, the examined one is the default page. If that
revision is depreciated/deleted, then the stable version would then be
the
default.
As for the oddness at http://www.baach.de/phase3de/index.php/Chemiker,
the
tags seem to be misconfigured there, as accuracy 1 counts as quality.

I've added http://www.baach.de/phase3/index.php/Chemist with the same sort of ratings, so you can compare the two approaches.

The software is currently more optimal for the latter, but Phase3de illustrates a reasonable alternative. I think we need to carefully consider the difference between these two approaches.

The crux of the issue is whether recent "Sighted/Stable" versions should be ignored if any "Examined/Quality" version exists, no matter how old it may be.

In favor of such precedence is that the presumed quality is what is made available to readers (by default).

Against it is that recent versions remain hidden, even though not vandalized, until someone puts in the effort to do a new inspection (and often editing) to produce a new, more recent, "Examined/Quality" version.

-RS

[P. Birken]

Post by R. S. Shaw
Against it is that recent versions remain hidden, even though not vandalized, until someone puts in the effort to do a new inspection (and often editing) to produce a new, more recent, "Examined/Quality" version.

Yes, that's the problem. We have to keep in mind that no matter what
the exact definition of "examined/reviewed" is, it will require more
effort to tag than sighted. Since we are not really sure whether the
tagging of versions as sighted will actually scale, I'm quite sure
that tagging as examined will not. Thus, the usual situation will be
the one mentioned by RS will be quite common. Therefore, I would
suggest not giving examined precedence. This is also already part of
the german proposal.

Bye,

Philipp

[Aaron Schulz]

I suggest that a global variable be added, which states how old a revision
can be (when not still the top rev) and override the default. That way,
outdated quality revs won't always override newer stable ones.

<html><div><FONT color=#3333cc>-Jason Schulz</FONT></div></html>

Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Clearify some things
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:31:21 +0200

Post by R. S. Shaw
Against it is that recent versions remain hidden, even though not

vandalized, until someone puts in the effort to do a new inspection (and
often editing) to produce a new, more recent, "Examined/Quality" version.
Yes, that's the problem. We have to keep in mind that no matter what
the exact definition of "examined/reviewed" is, it will require more
effort to tag than sighted. Since we are not really sure whether the
tagging of versions as sighted will actually scale, I'm quite sure
that tagging as examined will not. Thus, the usual situation will be
the one mentioned by RS will be quite common. Therefore, I would
suggest not giving examined precedence. This is also already part of
the german proposal.
Bye,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l

_________________________________________________________________
MSN is giving away a trip to Vegas to see Elton John.  Enter to win today.
http://msnconcertcontest.com?icid-nceltontagline

[P. Birken]

Post by Aaron Schulz
I suggest that a global variable be added, which states how old a revision
can be (when not still the top rev) and override the default. That way,
outdated quality revs won't always override newer stable ones.

I know that Eric is quite fond of something like that. Me, I am simply
not sure. One thing is, it makes things more complicated in that it is
less transparent when you would see what. I see the benifit, but I'm
also not sure whether we will really need this. I also see the problem
that it gives the reviewers more power over regular editors than in
the other setting.

Conclusion, if you want, just do it :-)

Bye,

Philipp

[R. S. Shaw]

Post by Aaron Schulz
I suggest that a global variable be added, which states how old a
revision
can be (when not still the top rev) and override the default. That way,
outdated quality revs won't always override newer stable ones.

I don't think the quality-expiration setting would be a good thing to do. Its presence is not apparent to editors and pretty much unexpected when it takes effect. It doesn't have clean lines. It's hard to pick a value which is good for most articles in a wiki. Editors will think "sometimes they see old ones, sometimes they don't; who knows?".

On the larger question, a blanket policy of having Examined versions take precedence over Sighted versions for all articles seems inadvisable to me. The effect may well turn out to be to "disenfranchise" normal (autoconfirmed) editors. As soon as an article has a version rated as Examined, normal editors no longer have any more power than anonymous IP editors to affect the published article. The article could be said to have been "poisoned". After this point, only those with Reviewer rights can get a version published. This is subject to accidental or casual "driveby rating", or more abusive version-pushing by Reviewers.

I think a better approach is generally use "at least Sighted" as the policy for a wiki as a whole, and then to use per-page criteria to explicitly set higher requirements for some individual articles. The criteria can be set to the Examined/Quality level, or Featured, or whatever is appropriate for the particular article. If it later is decided the higher requirement is no longer warranted for an article, it can just be set lower, e.g. back to Sighted. (Contrast this with Quality-over-all, where it would require finding every Quality version and re-rating them to just Sighted, thus losing the information, just to fool the mechanism and unpoison the article.)

-RS

[Joerg Baach]

Post by R. S. Shaw
I've added http://www.baach.de/phase3/index.php/Chemist with the same sort of ratings, so you can compare the two approaches.

btw, just put you into Sysops/Bureaucrats, just in case.

Anyone else?

Joerg

[Aaron Schulz]

I've updated the branch a bit and did some schema changing and a hook
addition to FlaggedRevs to deal with delete/undelete/move stuff.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs#Issues

The caching issue still remains for now. A fix will likely involve
counterparts to the imagelinks and pagelinks tables and some more hook
usage.

<html><div><FONT color=#3333cc>-Jason Schulz</FONT></div></html>

_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07

[Daniel Arnold]

I haven' followed the entire debate closely (maybe you have talked about that
already) but currently you cannot directly edit a reviewed page (regardless
which level/tag).

Currently you have to switch to the current revision until you can edit it.
This discadvantage was and is one of the _key arguments_ of people that are
against such a system as our "brand" is "edit this page". So the wiki looks
closed and "elitist" to the occasional visitor (and you know the press does
never look behind the fence in case you expect them to do so). AFAIK this was
also a concern raised by Erik (correct me if I am wrong).

The proposed solution to this problem was a modified "edit this page". Instead
of just showing the edit window with the current revision it would show a
diff to the current revision and below that the edit window with the current
text. That way we wouldn't give the impression that we want to "close" the
wiki (you know it's like politics, people get things different than you
suppose).

However this wouldn't solve the section edit problem on old revisions. So
reduced visibility of section edit is something we probably will have to
accept.

So how are your plans/ideas about that?

Arnomane

[P. Birken]

In the current specs, this is not included. Mainly, because we did not
think it a crucial part.

Personally, I am also not convinced that this is a good idea. If an IP
clicks on the edit-button and sees a diff, this will inevitably lead
to confusion. We could provide a warning box, but people don't really
read these but instead get the feeling that they did something wrong.

I believe that I like the current setting in phase3 more: Directly say
that the current version might be editable.

Cheers,

Philipp

Post by Daniel Arnold
I haven' followed the entire debate closely (maybe you have talked about that
already) but currently you cannot directly edit a reviewed page (regardless
which level/tag).
Currently you have to switch to the current revision until you can edit it.
This discadvantage was and is one of the _key arguments_ of people that are
against such a system as our "brand" is "edit this page". So the wiki looks
closed and "elitist" to the occasional visitor (and you know the press does
never look behind the fence in case you expect them to do so). AFAIK this was
also a concern raised by Erik (correct me if I am wrong).
The proposed solution to this problem was a modified "edit this page". Instead
of just showing the edit window with the current revision it would show a
diff to the current revision and below that the edit window with the current
text. That way we wouldn't give the impression that we want to "close" the
wiki (you know it's like politics, people get things different than you
suppose).
However this wouldn't solve the section edit problem on old revisions. So
reduced visibility of section edit is something we probably will have to
accept.
So how are your plans/ideas about that?
Arnomane
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l

[P. Birken]

RS has put up exactly the critical situation at
http://www.baach.de/phase3de/index.php/Chemiker.

There, we have an unvandalized version and an even older examined one.
However, the reader currently gets no message that there exists an
examined version. Otherwise, everything is OK.

Bye,

Philipp

[Joerg Baach]

Post by P. Birken
RS has put up exactly the critical situation at
http://www.baach.de/phase3de/index.php/Chemiker.
There, we have an unvandalized version and an even older examined one.
However, the reader currently gets no message that there exists an
examined version. Otherwise, everything is OK.

Great, a test case ;-)

Thx,

Joerg