![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Wikipedia is a community project. The community is quite good at many encyclopædia-building tasks, but it's not good at process change. I've lost count of the number of well-intentioned proposals for improved back-office processes which stumble and fail - but a minority have made it through the gauntlet. So, if we are to achieve anything on this page, I think we need to focus on one or two concrete and achievable proposals rather than dissipating our efforts on a variety of different things.
So, which of the proposals above has the best chance of building up momentum and making a positive improvement to en.wikipedia?
bobrayner (
talk)
01:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Please place your comments on the talk page, not here. Whenaxis ( talk) 01:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I was notified of this project during some much needed downtime. I just joined up, but it looks like there hasn't been much activity in almost 2 months.
That's a testament to the size of the problem. Our problems with the DR process is actually a combination of MANY different problems, all of which require many different solutions.
The only way this collaboration is going to work is if we try to narrow down the problem. Pick out one flaw in the dispute resolution process first... then discuss solutions. Don't try to tackle the whole problem, or even the biggest problem. Just any problem that's reasonably important, and reasonably solvable. Low hanging fruit.
Just my two cents. Shooterwalker ( talk) 21:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course I can. Here is the discussion at the VP on Binding RFCs]. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
A couple of years ago, I wrote an essay ( User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia) in which I suggested using content forking as a means of dispute resolution. The idea was that if two warring groups could not agree on the wording of an article, that two subpages be created within the article space, where the two sides could develop their ideas, then negotiate (if possible) an agreed version. The essay also suggested some editing and mediation rules that would make merger of the versions a possibility.
The idea was fairly roundly rejected by just about everyone. But User:Peter jackson has just brought to my attention that this very method is being used at the Knowino and Wikinfo Wikis. Is anyone aside from myself interested in knowing how well this method works in practice? Or should I just let the idea recumb into its usual moribund state? Regards -- Ravpapa ( talk) 12:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I happened to notice this description of a dispute regarding use of Wikiproject tags on article talk pages: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_Conservatism. I don't know if it's in the scope of this project to report such things here in case others want to jump in and try to resolve issues. But thought I'd announce and ask at same time, and find out! :-) CarolMooreDC 02:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I am a programmer and I think I would be interested in coding a bot. However, I have zero experience making bots for wikipedia and I don't quite understand what the bot is supposed to do. Has this bot been approved and just need built or do we need to first hammer out a spec and propose it? Eomund ( talk) 03:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I've censored part of the comment below. I hope I did not change the meaning. Von Restorff ( talk) 20:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh fucking great, a survey and you have to answer EVERY SINGLE FUCKING QUESTION. Kiss my ass. How you gonna get anything decent out of this. From stats? This is all you need to know. Dispute Resolutions are mainly a tool of butthurt editors. Look at all the editors who are on indefinite bans. They are almost all busy with dispute resolutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee is looking at ways to simplify the RFM process, and as part of that examination is considering moving away from the current process of using subpages for all requests (not just those that are accepted). We've created a mock-up at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/A, which is fully functional and includes a working method of submitting a request. Please try the process out (it's not visible on the main RFM page, so don't be afraid to follow through the request submission past the page-save process) and offer your observations at WT:MC. The mock-up is based on a similar system at WP:AE, where it works without fuss. AGK [•] 22:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey all. We are in real need of some help at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It's easy to get involved, have a read over the dispute and make a few comments regarding the dispute. Feel free to use your own style - there's no hard and fast rules. You'll get the hang of it soon :-). Secondly, some of us are starting to develop a guide to dispute resolution at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution/Proposals/Dispute resolution manual and we need a bunch of test cases to write case studies around, so if you come across any disputes that you think fit under the categories listed at that page, please provide links here. :-) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
How about going to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and suggesting that they do an article on this WikiProject? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
As all regular DR'ers know, all DR forums require that there be talk page discussion of a dispute before it is brought to DR, but we've all also seen many instances where the very problem is that the requesting editor has encountered an editor who simply won't discuss anything. I thought that the best advice to give to the requesting editor when I close a request for no discussion was to tell the listing editor to file an RFC if they can't get the other editor to click the "talk" link, but this dispute has caused me to realize that RFC also has a discuss-first requirement. I realize that particular dispute was perhaps an different situation in that the RFC requests were being deleted because the editor requesting them had himself/herself made no effort to discuss the matter before starting an RFC and that an RFC started by an editor who has made a valiant, but unsuccessful, effort to get discussion started might get a different reception, but is there something better to recommend in that situation? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Crime Story (film) spitefully edited as you can see my edits had legimate sources from the Los Angeles Times and DVD Talk [1]. I have written to the editor in person why and got no respone and the person has even been banned for 24 hours but has made no difference. Dwanyewest ( talk) 14:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I initiated a discussion on the individual page see Talk:Crime Story (film) and have spoken to the editor regarding his/her reasoning but to no avail what else am I supposed to do regarding unreasonable editors. Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussions on possible streamlining of the content dispute resolution process. Input requested and welcome. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 14:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been poring over the results of the survey as well as a few other things, and thought it might be time to get input from others here. One of the questions I asked in the survey was "What kind of technical changes do you think would improve the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia?" and a common response was something along the lines of "reduce the amount of dispute resolution forums". This was supported in another question, "What issues do you see that make dispute resolution difficult?" where 43% said that there are too many dispute resolution forums, 39% said dispute resolution is too complex, and 30% said that dispute resolution is inaccessible and too hard to find. With this in mind, a few of us have been discussion about how to simplify things. This is just an early idea but like all things is one worth discussing. Part of the issue with dispute resolution is lack of continuity. A possible fix to this may be to amalgamate many of the random dispute resolution forums into a SPI style format, and it could act as a central record for all disputes. Once resolved, it could be archived and referred back to as necessary. In the concept idea, processes like RFC would stay in place, and MedCom or ArbCom would remain unaffected. It would solve the issue of complexity - essentially it would be a one-stop shop for dispute resolution, and could be a simplified format, structured in a way to make it a catch-all i.e.: a question in the request format like "What is the issue you are bringing here" or words to that effect which could generate responses like "Me and User:Example cannot agree whether X source is reliable" or "I'm concerned that X content inserted by user Y in article Z may have BLP issues". I would also think that WQA could be closed - RFC's in the past as well as the survey have identified issues with WQA and it may be time to consider marking it as historical - but that's a discussion for later. Initial thoughts on the one-stop DR shop idea? Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 10:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I recently started helping out at DRN. Perhaps it might be of interest discussing what motivated me. For a long time I have thought that there might be a place where I can give back to Wikipedia in the areas of noticeboards. What attracted me to DRN first was the basic idea of a place where someone with a problem has first contact with the system. I figured that I might not be able to help with a problem but I certainly can point people to the proper forum. The second thing was the idea of focusing on content, not conduct. To me, checking content to see if it meets our standards is far easier than dealing with behavioral problems. Some folks are good at people problems, but I am more comfortable with a "just the facts" engineer-like approach. Finally, the warm reception I got when I started helping made me feel that someone more experienced had my back and was there to correct me if I screw up. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is a fresh idea; how about a dispute Triage? An editor posts an issue of any kind there, and a volunteer sorts it and moves it to the right place, whether it be DRN, SPI, article talk or user talk. When something is moved, a link will be left so users can find it. With some simple automation, this could be one-click. I can see the automation putting a message on the top with instructions such as "On hold: all parties must be notified (link to instructions)" or "Moved to user's talk page so problems can be corrected before resubmitting. Problem: Three days have passed without all parties being notified" or even "Moved to user's talk page so problems can be corrected before resubmitting. Problem: contains personal attacks (link to page explaining how to stay cool and be logical)."
With a triage step, the user will see a single place to bring every issue without having to figure out what all the different noticeboards are for. The noticeboards will spend less time telling people they have come to the wrong place. Flawed submissions will be bounced back with clear instructions explaining how to correct the problem. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Responses from Noleander to top-level suggestions
End Noleander responses
Comment by TransporterMan:
I have been giving more thought to the idea of a triage. Here are some ideas that might be worth considering. This is all blue sky thinking, so it no doubt contains flaws, but some of it might work.
For now, let's call it "Dispute Resolution Starting Point" (DRSP).
DSRP is a place where disputes are sorted and sent to the right place, or possibly kicked back to have flaws fixed before resubmitting. The intent is to no longer ask some new editor to figure out whether he needs to go to WP:RSN, WP:COIN, etc. and to no longer asking the noticeboards to deal with a constant stream of complaints that belong somewhere else.
First, we get all the various noticeboards to agree to bounce back anything that hasn't been through DRSP. (Insert comment about herding cats here.) We provide a wrong-place-top/wrong-place-bottom template that automates the bouncing.
We also ask them to please put in a bit of time helping at DRSP in appreciation of DRSP saving them time (Insert sound of crickets here.)
Next, we get each noticeboard to define what their requirements and prerequisites are -- what criteria the DRSP volunteers should use when sorting. (Insert comment about nailing Jello to a tree here.)
Now we force the editor lodging the complaint to actually read a page of instructions. Radical, I know. At the very least we make the type the word YES, but I would like to see two or three multiple-choice questions about the contents of the help page (Insert howls of protest here.)
The next step is to have the editor answer a series of questions which automatically populates a submission to the relevant noticeboard. until all answers are approved the submission stays at DRSP, collapsed and with a note saying "waiting for input from user X; See inside for details". All of this should be automated so a single click will post a notice for the more common flaws.
Finally, we submit to the noticeboard and replace the DSRP submission with a link to it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Another idea: how about a form they have to fill out instead of letting them edit using WikiMarkup? This could be made smart: "Error: You submitted a SPI case without specifying a sockmaster", "Error: you requested checkuser in a way that could link a username to an IP address" "Error: you are attempting to file a case at DRN, but you have never posted to the talk page of the article you have listed". The errors would be more friendly with fewer acronyms and would have help pages supporting them, but you get the idea. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
So, things have been rather slow as of late, with the last proposal (Binding RFCs) not going so well. It may appear that very little has been happening on the surface, but in honesty many of us have been in discussions, with ideas on how to improve dispute resolution. Some of these discussions are still in progress, so I can't say a lot, but possible proposals will be the streamlining of dispute resolution, by simplifying or eliminating some dispute resolution processes. The early results of the dispute resolution survey have shown a lot of improvement is needed, and has highlighted some of the more problematic dispute resolution forums. Over the next week or two, I will start compiling the results of the survey, and will then write them up - though some early aggregate results may be thrown around in discussions to see if we can move a few reforms a bit quicker. My first aim is to address WQA - it has fared the worst in the survey for effectiveness, by quite a lot, and an alternative process is something we should maybe look into.
I'd love to get the discussion going again. It's been rather quiet here recently, and I've been so busy jumping through hoops to get the survey rolled out that I've missed a lot, but also haven't had much time to move things along. Let's throw out ideas again, perhaps start with a discussion on WQA and possible alternatives. We're a clever bunch and I'd like to see what we can come up with. Look forward to moving things in DR forward. (Oh, and if any of you are going to Wikimania, see my sig) </shamelessplug> Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 09:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Wikipedia is a community project. The community is quite good at many encyclopædia-building tasks, but it's not good at process change. I've lost count of the number of well-intentioned proposals for improved back-office processes which stumble and fail - but a minority have made it through the gauntlet. So, if we are to achieve anything on this page, I think we need to focus on one or two concrete and achievable proposals rather than dissipating our efforts on a variety of different things.
So, which of the proposals above has the best chance of building up momentum and making a positive improvement to en.wikipedia?
bobrayner (
talk)
01:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Please place your comments on the talk page, not here. Whenaxis ( talk) 01:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I was notified of this project during some much needed downtime. I just joined up, but it looks like there hasn't been much activity in almost 2 months.
That's a testament to the size of the problem. Our problems with the DR process is actually a combination of MANY different problems, all of which require many different solutions.
The only way this collaboration is going to work is if we try to narrow down the problem. Pick out one flaw in the dispute resolution process first... then discuss solutions. Don't try to tackle the whole problem, or even the biggest problem. Just any problem that's reasonably important, and reasonably solvable. Low hanging fruit.
Just my two cents. Shooterwalker ( talk) 21:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course I can. Here is the discussion at the VP on Binding RFCs]. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
A couple of years ago, I wrote an essay ( User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia) in which I suggested using content forking as a means of dispute resolution. The idea was that if two warring groups could not agree on the wording of an article, that two subpages be created within the article space, where the two sides could develop their ideas, then negotiate (if possible) an agreed version. The essay also suggested some editing and mediation rules that would make merger of the versions a possibility.
The idea was fairly roundly rejected by just about everyone. But User:Peter jackson has just brought to my attention that this very method is being used at the Knowino and Wikinfo Wikis. Is anyone aside from myself interested in knowing how well this method works in practice? Or should I just let the idea recumb into its usual moribund state? Regards -- Ravpapa ( talk) 12:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I happened to notice this description of a dispute regarding use of Wikiproject tags on article talk pages: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_Conservatism. I don't know if it's in the scope of this project to report such things here in case others want to jump in and try to resolve issues. But thought I'd announce and ask at same time, and find out! :-) CarolMooreDC 02:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I am a programmer and I think I would be interested in coding a bot. However, I have zero experience making bots for wikipedia and I don't quite understand what the bot is supposed to do. Has this bot been approved and just need built or do we need to first hammer out a spec and propose it? Eomund ( talk) 03:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I've censored part of the comment below. I hope I did not change the meaning. Von Restorff ( talk) 20:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh fucking great, a survey and you have to answer EVERY SINGLE FUCKING QUESTION. Kiss my ass. How you gonna get anything decent out of this. From stats? This is all you need to know. Dispute Resolutions are mainly a tool of butthurt editors. Look at all the editors who are on indefinite bans. They are almost all busy with dispute resolutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee is looking at ways to simplify the RFM process, and as part of that examination is considering moving away from the current process of using subpages for all requests (not just those that are accepted). We've created a mock-up at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/A, which is fully functional and includes a working method of submitting a request. Please try the process out (it's not visible on the main RFM page, so don't be afraid to follow through the request submission past the page-save process) and offer your observations at WT:MC. The mock-up is based on a similar system at WP:AE, where it works without fuss. AGK [•] 22:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey all. We are in real need of some help at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It's easy to get involved, have a read over the dispute and make a few comments regarding the dispute. Feel free to use your own style - there's no hard and fast rules. You'll get the hang of it soon :-). Secondly, some of us are starting to develop a guide to dispute resolution at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution/Proposals/Dispute resolution manual and we need a bunch of test cases to write case studies around, so if you come across any disputes that you think fit under the categories listed at that page, please provide links here. :-) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
How about going to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and suggesting that they do an article on this WikiProject? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
As all regular DR'ers know, all DR forums require that there be talk page discussion of a dispute before it is brought to DR, but we've all also seen many instances where the very problem is that the requesting editor has encountered an editor who simply won't discuss anything. I thought that the best advice to give to the requesting editor when I close a request for no discussion was to tell the listing editor to file an RFC if they can't get the other editor to click the "talk" link, but this dispute has caused me to realize that RFC also has a discuss-first requirement. I realize that particular dispute was perhaps an different situation in that the RFC requests were being deleted because the editor requesting them had himself/herself made no effort to discuss the matter before starting an RFC and that an RFC started by an editor who has made a valiant, but unsuccessful, effort to get discussion started might get a different reception, but is there something better to recommend in that situation? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Crime Story (film) spitefully edited as you can see my edits had legimate sources from the Los Angeles Times and DVD Talk [1]. I have written to the editor in person why and got no respone and the person has even been banned for 24 hours but has made no difference. Dwanyewest ( talk) 14:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I initiated a discussion on the individual page see Talk:Crime Story (film) and have spoken to the editor regarding his/her reasoning but to no avail what else am I supposed to do regarding unreasonable editors. Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussions on possible streamlining of the content dispute resolution process. Input requested and welcome. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 14:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been poring over the results of the survey as well as a few other things, and thought it might be time to get input from others here. One of the questions I asked in the survey was "What kind of technical changes do you think would improve the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia?" and a common response was something along the lines of "reduce the amount of dispute resolution forums". This was supported in another question, "What issues do you see that make dispute resolution difficult?" where 43% said that there are too many dispute resolution forums, 39% said dispute resolution is too complex, and 30% said that dispute resolution is inaccessible and too hard to find. With this in mind, a few of us have been discussion about how to simplify things. This is just an early idea but like all things is one worth discussing. Part of the issue with dispute resolution is lack of continuity. A possible fix to this may be to amalgamate many of the random dispute resolution forums into a SPI style format, and it could act as a central record for all disputes. Once resolved, it could be archived and referred back to as necessary. In the concept idea, processes like RFC would stay in place, and MedCom or ArbCom would remain unaffected. It would solve the issue of complexity - essentially it would be a one-stop shop for dispute resolution, and could be a simplified format, structured in a way to make it a catch-all i.e.: a question in the request format like "What is the issue you are bringing here" or words to that effect which could generate responses like "Me and User:Example cannot agree whether X source is reliable" or "I'm concerned that X content inserted by user Y in article Z may have BLP issues". I would also think that WQA could be closed - RFC's in the past as well as the survey have identified issues with WQA and it may be time to consider marking it as historical - but that's a discussion for later. Initial thoughts on the one-stop DR shop idea? Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 10:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I recently started helping out at DRN. Perhaps it might be of interest discussing what motivated me. For a long time I have thought that there might be a place where I can give back to Wikipedia in the areas of noticeboards. What attracted me to DRN first was the basic idea of a place where someone with a problem has first contact with the system. I figured that I might not be able to help with a problem but I certainly can point people to the proper forum. The second thing was the idea of focusing on content, not conduct. To me, checking content to see if it meets our standards is far easier than dealing with behavioral problems. Some folks are good at people problems, but I am more comfortable with a "just the facts" engineer-like approach. Finally, the warm reception I got when I started helping made me feel that someone more experienced had my back and was there to correct me if I screw up. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is a fresh idea; how about a dispute Triage? An editor posts an issue of any kind there, and a volunteer sorts it and moves it to the right place, whether it be DRN, SPI, article talk or user talk. When something is moved, a link will be left so users can find it. With some simple automation, this could be one-click. I can see the automation putting a message on the top with instructions such as "On hold: all parties must be notified (link to instructions)" or "Moved to user's talk page so problems can be corrected before resubmitting. Problem: Three days have passed without all parties being notified" or even "Moved to user's talk page so problems can be corrected before resubmitting. Problem: contains personal attacks (link to page explaining how to stay cool and be logical)."
With a triage step, the user will see a single place to bring every issue without having to figure out what all the different noticeboards are for. The noticeboards will spend less time telling people they have come to the wrong place. Flawed submissions will be bounced back with clear instructions explaining how to correct the problem. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Responses from Noleander to top-level suggestions
End Noleander responses
Comment by TransporterMan:
I have been giving more thought to the idea of a triage. Here are some ideas that might be worth considering. This is all blue sky thinking, so it no doubt contains flaws, but some of it might work.
For now, let's call it "Dispute Resolution Starting Point" (DRSP).
DSRP is a place where disputes are sorted and sent to the right place, or possibly kicked back to have flaws fixed before resubmitting. The intent is to no longer ask some new editor to figure out whether he needs to go to WP:RSN, WP:COIN, etc. and to no longer asking the noticeboards to deal with a constant stream of complaints that belong somewhere else.
First, we get all the various noticeboards to agree to bounce back anything that hasn't been through DRSP. (Insert comment about herding cats here.) We provide a wrong-place-top/wrong-place-bottom template that automates the bouncing.
We also ask them to please put in a bit of time helping at DRSP in appreciation of DRSP saving them time (Insert sound of crickets here.)
Next, we get each noticeboard to define what their requirements and prerequisites are -- what criteria the DRSP volunteers should use when sorting. (Insert comment about nailing Jello to a tree here.)
Now we force the editor lodging the complaint to actually read a page of instructions. Radical, I know. At the very least we make the type the word YES, but I would like to see two or three multiple-choice questions about the contents of the help page (Insert howls of protest here.)
The next step is to have the editor answer a series of questions which automatically populates a submission to the relevant noticeboard. until all answers are approved the submission stays at DRSP, collapsed and with a note saying "waiting for input from user X; See inside for details". All of this should be automated so a single click will post a notice for the more common flaws.
Finally, we submit to the noticeboard and replace the DSRP submission with a link to it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Another idea: how about a form they have to fill out instead of letting them edit using WikiMarkup? This could be made smart: "Error: You submitted a SPI case without specifying a sockmaster", "Error: you requested checkuser in a way that could link a username to an IP address" "Error: you are attempting to file a case at DRN, but you have never posted to the talk page of the article you have listed". The errors would be more friendly with fewer acronyms and would have help pages supporting them, but you get the idea. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
So, things have been rather slow as of late, with the last proposal (Binding RFCs) not going so well. It may appear that very little has been happening on the surface, but in honesty many of us have been in discussions, with ideas on how to improve dispute resolution. Some of these discussions are still in progress, so I can't say a lot, but possible proposals will be the streamlining of dispute resolution, by simplifying or eliminating some dispute resolution processes. The early results of the dispute resolution survey have shown a lot of improvement is needed, and has highlighted some of the more problematic dispute resolution forums. Over the next week or two, I will start compiling the results of the survey, and will then write them up - though some early aggregate results may be thrown around in discussions to see if we can move a few reforms a bit quicker. My first aim is to address WQA - it has fared the worst in the survey for effectiveness, by quite a lot, and an alternative process is something we should maybe look into.
I'd love to get the discussion going again. It's been rather quiet here recently, and I've been so busy jumping through hoops to get the survey rolled out that I've missed a lot, but also haven't had much time to move things along. Let's throw out ideas again, perhaps start with a discussion on WQA and possible alternatives. We're a clever bunch and I'd like to see what we can come up with. Look forward to moving things in DR forward. (Oh, and if any of you are going to Wikimania, see my sig) </shamelessplug> Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 09:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)