Mailing List Archive

Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
CC'd this to Foundation-l.

There is a poll currently on the English Wikipedia to implement a version of
FlaggedRevisions. The poll was introduced left into the vacuum which
remained after the first poll failed to result in concrete action. At the
close of poll #1, Jimmy indicated that he thought it had passed and should
result in an FR implementation. When he received some protest, he announced
that he would shortly unveil a new compromise proposal.

While I'm sure he had the best of intentions, this proposal hasn't
materialized and the result has been limbo. Into the limbo rides another
proposal, this one masquerading as the hoped for compromise. Unfortunately,
it isn't - at least, not in the sense that it is a middle ground between
those who want FR implemented and those who oppose it. What it does do is
compromise, as in fundamentally weaken, the concept of FR and the effort to
improve our handling of BLPs.

The proposed implementation introduces all the bureaucracy and effort of
FlaggedRevisions, with few of the benefits. FlaggedProtection, similar to
semi-protection, can be placed on any article. In some instances,
FlaggedProtection is identical to normal full protection - only, it still
allows edit wars on unsighted versions (woohoo). Patrolled revisions are
passive - you can patrol them, but doing so won't impact what the general
reader will see. It gives us the huge and useless backlog which is exactly
what we should not want, and exactly what the opposition has predicted. The
only likely result is that inertia will prevent any further FR
implementation, and we'll be stuck with a substitute that grants no real
benefit.

What I would like to see, and what I have been hoping to see, is either
implementation of the prior proposal (taking a form similar to that used by
de.wp) or actual proposal of a true compromise version. The current poll
asks us to just give up.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 [ In reply to ]
Nathan wrote:
> CC'd this to Foundation-l.
>
> There is a poll currently on the English Wikipedia to implement a version of
> FlaggedRevisions. The poll was introduced left into the vacuum which
> remained after the first poll failed to result in concrete action. At the
> close of poll #1, Jimmy indicated that he thought it had passed and should
> result in an FR implementation. When he received some protest, he announced
> that he would shortly unveil a new compromise proposal.
>
> While I'm sure he had the best of intentions, this proposal hasn't
> materialized and the result has been limbo. Into the limbo rides another
> proposal, this one masquerading as the hoped for compromise. Unfortunately,
> it isn't - at least, not in the sense that it is a middle ground between
> those who want FR implemented and those who oppose it. What it does do is
> compromise, as in fundamentally weaken, the concept of FR and the effort to
> improve our handling of BLPs.
>
> The proposed implementation introduces all the bureaucracy and effort of
> FlaggedRevisions, with few of the benefits. FlaggedProtection, similar to
> semi-protection, can be placed on any article. In some instances,
> FlaggedProtection is identical to normal full protection - only, it still
> allows edit wars on unsighted versions (woohoo). Patrolled revisions are
> passive - you can patrol them, but doing so won't impact what the general
> reader will see. It gives us the huge and useless backlog which is exactly
> what we should not want, and exactly what the opposition has predicted. The
> only likely result is that inertia will prevent any further FR
> implementation, and we'll be stuck with a substitute that grants no real
> benefit.
>
> What I would like to see, and what I have been hoping to see, is either
> implementation of the prior proposal (taking a form similar to that used by
> de.wp) or actual proposal of a true compromise version. The current poll
> asks us to just give up.
>

How is it not a compromise? Its a version that most of the supporters
still support and that many of the opposers now support. Compromise
involves both sides making concessions, not repeatedly proposing the
same thing in hopes of a different outcome. So far it has far more
community support than the previous proposed version (which had what?
60% support?).

I'm getting really mad at the people opposing every version of
FlaggedRevs that doesn't provide some ultimate level of protection for
BLPs. If you want something that helps BLPs, PROPOSE SOMETHING! Sitting
around and opposing everything in favor of some non-existent system is
unhelpful and basically saying that articles are worthless unless they
are BLPs. The proposed system can potentially help some articles, while
this un-proposed system that will be a magic bullet for the BLP problem
currently helps nothing, because it doesn't exist.

I agree that patrolled revisions have a high likelihood of failing. Its
too bad we aren't proposing to use it as a trial instead, so if they
don't work, we can come up with a different system. Oh, wait...

If FlaggedProtection results in a manageable system, then we can
consider expanding it to more articles than the current policy would
allow. Enwiki is big and slow; expecting it to do some massive, visible
change over hundreds of thousands of articles all at once is rather
unrealistic. Several months ago, I told Erik on this list that enwiki
would never be able to get consensus for FR, it looks like I'm wrong
about that. Perhaps there's some hope left after all.

--
Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Alex <mrzmanwiki@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> How is it not a compromise? Its a version that most of the supporters
> still support and that many of the opposers now support. Compromise
> involves both sides making concessions, not repeatedly proposing the
> same thing in hopes of a different outcome. So far it has far more
> community support than the previous proposed version (which had what?
> 60% support?).
>
> I'm getting really mad at the people opposing every version of
> FlaggedRevs that doesn't provide some ultimate level of protection for
> BLPs. If you want something that helps BLPs, PROPOSE SOMETHING! Sitting
> around and opposing everything in favor of some non-existent system is
> unhelpful and basically saying that articles are worthless unless they
> are BLPs. The proposed system can potentially help some articles, while
> this un-proposed system that will be a magic bullet for the BLP problem
> currently helps nothing, because it doesn't exist.
>
> I agree that patrolled revisions have a high likelihood of failing. Its
> too bad we aren't proposing to use it as a trial instead, so if they
> don't work, we can come up with a different system. Oh, wait...
>
> If FlaggedProtection results in a manageable system, then we can
> consider expanding it to more articles than the current policy would
> allow. Enwiki is big and slow; expecting it to do some massive, visible
> change over hundreds of thousands of articles all at once is rather
> unrealistic. Several months ago, I told Erik on this list that enwiki
> would never be able to get consensus for FR, it looks like I'm wrong
> about that. Perhaps there's some hope left after all.
>
>
What you're mostly seeing is people who supported the last poll agreeing
because anything is better than nothing, and some people who opposed the
last poll supporting because this one clearly has no teeth.

More importantly, the most obvious thing this poll has demonstrated so far
is that it has not been widely discussed or publicized. To go from
discussion to closing the poll in a couple of weeks, where only the last
couple of days see a watchlist notice, is more than a bit ridiculous.

I'm far from being a serial opposer of FR or proposals to improve protection
of BLPs. I supported the last poll. If this poll simply didn't go far
enough, but had some improvement built in, then I'd support it. But
implementing patrolled revisions particularly, and the flawed conception of
flagged protection, is not just a very minor improvement but in fact
counterproductive. The drudgework, minus any benefit, will actively turn
people against FlaggedRevisions in its useful form.

So its not a compromise because it guts FR's value and its intended impact
on BLPs, without addressing any of the concerns related to bureaucracy or
backlogs that opposers have raised.

Necessarily this conversation is taking place on two lists, so if anyone
feels like they are missing part of it you might check WikiEn-l for the
rest.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 [ In reply to ]
> CC'd this to Foundation-l.
>
Would you mind adding links to the former and present dsiscussions? Not
all of us are en.wp discussion regulars.

Thanks
Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>wrote:

> > CC'd this to Foundation-l.
> >
> Would you mind adding links to the former and present dsiscussions? Not
> all of us are en.wp discussion regulars.
>
> Thanks
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
>
1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Poll
2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Trial
5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Update_on_BLP_.2F_Flagged_Protection_.2F_Flagged_Revs
6)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_45#Action_needed_on_flagged_revisions
7)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_44#Why_I_am_asking_Flagged_Revisions_to_be_turned_on_now
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions

I'm sure there are dozens more major discussions archived in various places.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 [ In reply to ]
Well, the poll was closed with 80% support. It probably should have been
extended, if for no other reasons than that votes continued to come in at a
pretty good clip and there is no pressing reason to close it on deadline.

If I were a developer or a WMF executive, I might pause at implementing a
proposal for quite significant change on the English Wikipedia based on a
poll with only 320 participants.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 [ In reply to ]
-- On Tue, 3/31/09, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 7:50 PM
> Well, the poll was closed with 80%
> support. It probably should have been
> extended, if for no other reasons than that votes continued
> to come in at a
> pretty good clip and there is no pressing reason to close
> it on deadline.
>
> If I were a developer or a WMF executive, I might pause at
> implementing a
> proposal for quite significant change on the English
> Wikipedia based on a
> poll with only 320 participants.
>

I am afraid this one is serious.

Asking Foundation staff to overrule a community decision is not going find support here. However vaguely you phrase it. Sort it out on en.WP.

Birgitte SB





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> I am afraid this one is serious.
>
> Asking Foundation staff to overrule a community decision is not going find
> support here. However vaguely you phrase it. Sort it out on en.WP.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
>
>
>
>

Well, it is serious, and your comment begs the question I think. For
something as significant as enabling the FlaggedRevs extension, is the
support of 250 editors sufficient to constitute a community decision? As I
said, if I were the last decision maker before the switch is flipped, I'd
have to think about that. Anyway, I suppose my comments may contribute to
the FUD surrounding FlaggedRevs, which I regret. If the most recently polled
version of the extension gets enabled, I'll do my best to make it work as
well as possible.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l