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 |
I like this, some suggestions:
-- Apoc2400 ( talk) 20:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Semi-flagged protection has disadvantages too, if I understand it correctly. Any change (good or bad) by a new or IP editor locks a page, preventing "normal editors" (autoconfirmed non-reviewers) from making visible changes. An exception allowing all editors to undo vandalism (revert a flagged change and unflag) could reduce the impact. Certes ( talk) 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't get the point of these. Why not just use sighted versions instead? Pages that have them don't have to be configured to use them by default. Also, passive flags tend to be just extra complexity that is neglected, like new page patrol here. On .de wiki, the RC patrol flags for articles are tied to sighting, and so there are barely any unpatrolled new pages there. Aaron Schulz 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Why are there 'reviewer' and 'moderator' groups. Both may as well have rollback and such (which seem to be the differences). Also, autopromote only works on the group canonically named 'editor'. You can edit the UI to make 'editor' have the name 'reviewer' though. Aaron Schulz 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
About rollback: I don't think we should grant reviewers rollback rights. Rollback is sometimes removed due to misuse in disputes, and having to remove reviewer rights together would be drama-seeking. Many admins would also dislike an autopromotion to rollback, even with strong requirements. Rollback is really a tool-like rights, and some users obtained it even though they were not autoconfirmed, so inversely, rollbackers shouldn't be given reviewer rights. I had proposed it for 'moderators' but if we don't use this usergroup
Cenarium (
talk) 23:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest automatically making users into Reviewer after 3 months and 100 edits. It can be given or taken away by an administrator manually as well. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 20:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION PAGE AT Wikipedia talk:Reviewers
I edited the proposal a bit. Are you ok with this? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest removing the "Full Flag Protection" option. Not because it is bad, but because it complicates the proposal. Normal full protection will still be available. If needed, Full Flag Protection can be proposed later. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think edits by autoconfirmed users should also require flagging by reviewers. On the other hand, it should be easy to become a reviewer. Just having edits checked by someone is a big improvement. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to define who reviewers are. I suggest we set a starting point and invite people to suggest changes of the proposal. How about 3 months + 100 edits. That should be enough to keep out vandals and sockpuppets, but low enough to let anyone with honest intentions be a reviewer. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION PAGE AT Wikipedia talk:Reviewers
I suggest the following requirements for flagged protection:
-- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
How about instead of a formal trial, we let this be rolled in gradually as more pages are flag-protected? Passive flagging cannot possible cause any harm, so no trial should be necessary for that. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I like this proposal, and think it could gain enough support to move forward. I suggest putting some pointers to here up at the centralized discussions board and the community portal noticeboard.-- ragesoss ( talk) 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
So how will flagged reviews appear to the 'passer by looking up something'? What is the procedure to ensure that 'most changes' are dealt with rapidly (ie tweaks, updates and similar uncontentious additions)? Who will monitor articles where there is a degree of controversy, a rapidly changing situation, or very obscure topics? Who will monitor the monitors? What happens if a patrolled article is shown to have been changed in a negative direction?
Has there been any statistical analysis of changes to articles - what percentage are 'neutrally changed or improved', 'minor errors and confusions, promptly corrected' and 'malicious, argumentative, pseudo-humorous and similar' etc?
There should be a review of the situation at 'certain points' after the system has been settled in to see how effective it is. It may be more appropriate to have certain categories of article flagged and others merely checked and monitored.
The Keynes quote about changing views as the situation changes can be appropriate - but not always. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
One issue that occurred to me a moment ago was that, in the case of full flagged-protection, the usual disclaimer of "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version" would not quite apply: by definition revisions which are flagged are endorsed to some degree. Does this constitute a conflict with current dispute processes and, if so, is there a simple way around the problem? {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we start polling on this please? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You could advertise it at the village pump too. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll probably have more questions later. Thanks in advance. Protonk ( talk) 18:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a few questions that I could not see addressed elsewhere (sorry if I missed where they are answered).
The line "Flagged protection is a proposal to allow administrators to enable an "active" flag on a given article. Reviewers can flag revisions, and the version viewed by readers by default is the latest flagged revision." seems to be causing some confusion in the poll, as it appears to contradict the table in the next section. Should it be clarified to say that IP edits to semiprotected pages and all non-admin edits to fully protected pages are not viewed by default? Right now it looks just like flagged revisions until you read further, so its contradictory at this time. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 19:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
So, I'm imagining all currently protected pages (except WP:MAIN, etc.) would be switched over to flagged protection for the duration of the two month testing period? -- Kendrick7 talk 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
What are the trial conditions? I mean, I'm a long way out from science, but in my experience there are normally measures put in place at the outset which are used to indicate the success or failure of a trial. It would be nice to see some thinking on this before the trial begins, to save divisiveness after the trial ends. What are we looking for with this trial? There doesn't seem to be any indication of what the purpose of the trial is, or to what articles it applies to. Is it only BLP's, or all articles? Is it a subset of BLP's, so we have a control group, or are we comparing against the previous two months worth of data? What comparisons points are there? Is there a way to randomise between semi-protecting and flagging, by which I mean, could the devs whip up a randomiser so that when an admin goes to semi-protect, it will either semi-protect or flag? What are we looking to achieve with this trial? Better protection for BLP's? If so, what do we compare? And what else will we measure? Will we look at whether anonymous editing drops off? And if so, is two months a long enough period? And what level of drop off is acceptable? I think it is silly polling on whether the trial should happen. It's far better to work out how to run the trial. Refusing to run the trial means we learn nothing. I take it that after the two months the Wikipedia will be restored to the functionality it has now while the community discusses the trial and works out what lessons have been learnt? Maybe a two week discussion and reflection period and then a poll on whether and how to roll out fully? Hiding T 14:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If the trial is accepted, before the implementation, we should create /implementation and /trial subpages to discuss the issues. I think guidelines should be created at WIkipedia:Flagged protection, Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions and 'Wikipedia:Flagging guideline' (encompassing patrolling, reviewing and validating), and an informal page Wikipedia:Reviewers.
When all this is done, we can implement the two-month trial and at the end, start a community discussion on whether we want to implement flagged protection and patrolled revisions (separately). The default is: stop the implementations, so we'd need consensus to continue one or the other implementation. What do you think ? Cenarium ( talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
←Is there any issue with starting this discussion now? The poll result seems certain. Kevin ( talk) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Created
Implementation and
Trial subpages. We need to complete and agree on the implementation 'principles', and work on the trial conduct and draft policies. It should be fine to start with preliminary discussions before the end of the poll.
Cenarium (
talk) 00:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I am fairly certain I know the answer to this, but I would simply like to make sure: would the implementation/trial of this proposal in any way affect unprotected pages? I believe that it doesn't, but I would like to make sure before voting. ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 20:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
About bringing the community's attention to this... isn't it time yet? A watchlist notice would help to bring the opinions of a lot more people, and as I remember we had this for the last poll at an earlier stage. Chamal talk 05:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from the article:
"When an autoconfirmed user edits a semi flagged protected page, the new revision is automatically reviewed when the previous one is. But not when the previous one is not, to avoid insertions of unnoticed vandalism or violations of policies. This second case should happen quite rarely, as edits are continually flagged by reviewers."
This is not very clear.
Questions to try to understand this:
- the new revision is automatically reviewed when the previous one is WHAT? Reviewed?
- What does "automatically reviewed" mean?? - isn't review a "manual" process, done by a human reviewer?
- "but the new revision is not reviewed when the previous one is not". Is this supposed to mean the new revision CANNOT BE reviewed before the earlier revision is reviewed and approved???? If so, it would be clearer to say that.
Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
One of the BLP's I've taken an interest in is subject to frequent vandalism, POV editing, etc. Much of it gets reverted or edited by the various people watching. Something I've been doing is once every week or two I a diff against my last edit to detect vandalism or POV text that managed to slip past the the editing/correction by multiple parties. What I'd like to be able to do is to flag that a particular version is "good" meaning that in my opinion the net edits since my last edit or flagging have been constructive. These flags would only be visible to me.
Personal flags would also be useful to someone that visits an article intermittently and is also interested in the changes since the last visit. I watchlist them but would love it if there was a way for me to flag a particular edition and much later I could go back and do a diff against that edition. In this case I'm interested in the net changes made and normally don't care about the day to day edits. -- Marc Kupper| talk 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
On account of the fact that Brion has indicated that turning FlaggedRevs on on en.wiki is a Big Deal that is going to take a lot of optimisation, performance upgrades and load balancing to avoid crashing the site like they did with the first rollout of the AbuseFilter, there's nothing to lose by getting the ball rolling on that ASAP. Accordingly, I have filed T20314. Start the clock... :D Happy‑ melon 20:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
A test implementation on testwiki would be great for testing beforehand, however. Cenarium ( talk) 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I submitted T20334 for a test implementation. Cenarium ( talk) 02:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
A poll on autopromotion is drafted here, help in its elaboration is welcome. Cenarium ( talk) 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been following very closely to this discussion so the question I'm asking might have been answered somewhere. But I've tried for a few hours today to figure out when exactly the trial period is. The only thing I seem to be certain is that the poll has ended on April 1st, the trial period will be two months, but I still don't know if it already started or when it will. Can someone help? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.4.64 ( talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
So, are we waiting for some development. Isn't vandalism higher during the summer? Sad, there has been no progress since April? Can we publicize what proponents can do, here? -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 23:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that now we can formally request the implementation. The poll on autopromotion for reviewers closed as no consensus. There are still a few unresolved issues at the implementation subpage, they can be handled by developers at bugzilla, and we'll probably have enough time to finish to set up most of the policies before the implementation. It's T20244. Cenarium ( talk) 22:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone play with the idea of making non-reviewed revisions automatically visible after some time, say, 17 hours after the " last known good" version, with various additional effects? This would address at least two issues:
Possible additional bells and whistles:
Any thoughts? - 7-bubёn >t 15:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Could we have more details in the project page answering these questions:
At the moment the current version just says "During the trial, semi flagged protection is intended to be used with the same requirements as for semi-protection, and full flagged protection (see below), with the same requirements as for full-protection." Unfortunately, I couldn't find any policy which actually details these criteria beyond a comment on WP:RPP that "Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection is usually used only to prevent IP and new user vandalism". WP:PROTECT is surprisingly silent on the issue, although it does refer to the essay WP:ROUGH. Although it makes some sense to allow admins to apply judgement and discretion for PP, it may be appropriate for something as contraversial and polarising as flagging to have more definite criteria.
The current version gives "Reviewers" rights over semi-flagged pages and "Admins" rights over full-flagged protection. Could someone explain - in the project space - the rationale for giving admins these rights rather than reviewers.
Rather like WP:CSD, I think we need a clear understanding of what kind of edits will be disapproved and a clear bias in favour of approval. I've started a proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Flagged protection approval - please edit away! AndrewRT( Talk) 23:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we tag this as {{ historical}}? There seems to be little hope of an actual implementation. Kevin ( talk) 22:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The NYT just posted an article related to this: Cohen, Noam (2009-08-25). "Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2009-08-25.. But it seems to me they got the impact of the trial wrong, as I clarified here: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?permid=42#comment42 - did I get it right, or are "wikipedia officials" talking about a different kind of trial? There have been a confusing array of proposals out there.... -- NealMcB ( talk) 03:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reviewers have access to Special:OldReviewedPages, listing all flagged protected pages where the latest revision is not confirmed.
This could be interpreted as saying that access to OldReviewedPages will be limited to reviewers, was that the intent? If this information is treated as confidential it will be more difficult to measure and report on the impact of the change. Since the information is inconveniently available by scanning page histories, I can't see what gain could be achieved by making access more difficult. Does anyone oppose changing the page to read "Special:OldReviewedPages is public list of all flagged protected pages where the latest revision is not confirmed"? -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
First, it was the new living biographies policy and now it's the flagged protection policy: I learned about the changes through the news media rather from Wikipedia itself even though I visit multiple times a day. Editors are not being given enough notice that major policy shifts are about to take place and where they can join the discussion before the final vote takes place. Issues such as these should appear on the main page asking for more feedback from editors before being put into affect. Wikipedia has no problems asking for money or for users to take a survey on the main page so why not asking for feedback on issues that shake the foundations of the site and its philosophy to the core. The majority of editors are actually improving content rather than playing the Wikipedia power struggle game and scanning the policy proposals (of which there are too many to follow all of them anyway). I have in the past contributed to discussions about flagged revisions and would have done so more if I knew that the debate was coming close to an end.
The idea of flagged revisions is interesting and if there was a problem of excessive vandalism I would be for it. However, all the proponents of flagged revision --- with all of their rhetoric about vandals --- seem to neglect that Wikipedia has still been getting better overall despite vandalism. This means the current model is still working and all this doomsday talk about vandals ruining Wikipedia has no basis in reality. I've even seen quotes in article about this change saying that Wikipedia's slowdown in article creation is related to the site's quality and therefore flagged revisions are needed. Jam-packed with non-sequitors! It seems to occur to no one that the reason article creation has slowed down is because Wikipedia's coverage is largely complete. If a person cannot see that, their judgement as a Wikipedian is basically worthless. Flagged revisions are not necessary at this moment in time and most of the arguments that support them are flawed. If Wikipedia doesn't start notifying editors better about major changes, article creation will suffer. Why? Because if there's a third time a major policy change occurs and I didn't feel like the community was informed enough beforehand, I'll stop contributing. Jason Quinn ( talk) 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
To be fair to Jason Quinn, the discussion wasn't that widely advertised. Most Wikipedians that don't watch the village pump constantly probably didn't notice. On the other hand, this is just a test implementation and there should be an even bigger community discussion at the end of it. The press is somewhat jumping ahead. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed to use a talknotice to better advertize in the future. But there's been no responses yet. The discussion on continuing the implementation at the end of the trial should be massively advertized. Cenarium ( talk) 15:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, unless it's something displayed in a 72pt bold, bright red, flashing marquee in readers' faces or having a bot spam announcements to all >1 million user talk pages, I don't see how it's going to get more into the discussion. Perhaps this is more symbolic is turnouts in many U.S. elections if not worse. That or that many people have been under a rock for about the past year. Or maybe some just plain DGAF or are otherwise ambivalent about the whole thing. MuZemike 00:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the standard of review being proposed for patrolled revisions? Saying an article about a living person does not violate WP:BLP is not so simple. Are we talking about:
One arguably might need to do all of the above (and more) to assert the article does not violate BLP. It could require more work than a featured article review.
While I am not a lawyer, it seems to me there is also a potential legal issue here. As I understand it, while the Wikimedia Foundation is largely protected from legal action over article content by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, this protection does not apply to individual editors. While I suspect an editor who makes a good faith edit while ignoring some defamatory content faces little risk, I'm concerned about the potential exposure for a reviewer attesting that an article is free of such content, particularly in a way that other reviewers will then rely on.
One possible solution might be to make it clear that reviewers are only expected to do 1. above and that subsequent reviewers should not rely completely on the patrolled flag. Another approach, at least for the first review, might be to ask the editors who follow the article if they know of any outstanding issues with the current revision and set the patrolled flag the first time only if no such issues are raised. The initial reviewer would then be merely summarizing a collective judgement, not asserting their own opinion. (I first raised these issues at Wikipedia talk:Patrolled revisions, but no one seems to be watching there.) -- agr ( talk) 23:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out which articles will be flag protected when this is implemented. Is there a discussion somewhere? Will it only be semi-protected and fully protected articles? Thanks. Mahanga Talk 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This mailing list thread may become something of interest. -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 04:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It's time to give it a spin: http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Looks like there are a lot of UI issues that need to be worked out. You can help by leaving comments on the comments page and by becoming an admin there (just ask) and changing the user interface messages yourself. Cheers. -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 03:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a technical question: Will it be possible once flagged protection is implemented to have a page be under both intermediary flagged protection and semiprotection, such that anons can't edit, and autoconfirmed users can submit edits for review? Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Per Webster's New World and other dictionaries, "intermediary" is the wrong word; as an adjective, it means "providing a link between"; it suggests an agent operating between two entities. "Intermediate" is the word we're looking for here, I think. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This has now been delayed for months due to technical requirements, it is also somewhat complicated. I've come up with a much simpler proposal that might do a lot of good, happen sooner, and really help with BLP problems. Please take an open-minded looks at Wikipedia:Targeted Flagging.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 17:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Patrolled_revisions#How is this different from Special:recentchanges->living people? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
"A revision can be confirmed by a reviewer only when the page is semi or intermediately flagged protected (and not when fully flagged protected). A revision can be validated by an administrator only when the page is fully flagged protected." I think this means to say "A revision can be confirmed by a reviewer who is not an administrator only when the page is semi or intermediately flagged protected (and not when fully flagged protected). When the page is fully flagged protected, only an administrator can confirm." DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
See http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/01/flagged-revisions-your-questions-answered for the latest from the Foundation. - Banyan Tree 05:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have made a new updated version here, what do you think of it ? Cenarium ( talk) 01:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
( repeat of my mail to wikien-l): Hi folks, as of yesterday, I'm working as a contractor at Wikimedia Foundation, helping out with several things, one of which being the Flagged Revs rollout.
One thing I'm going to be helping William and the crew out with is working out some of the unanswered questions in the description of the rollout phase on this set of pages.
I've been following the threads and playing around with the features, but I'm probably not as up to speed on this stuff as many of you are, so I'm sure I'll be begging your indulgence from time-to-time.
If there is anything on the pages above that you know needs correction or clarification based on the existing consensus, please be bold make that fix. Citations back to email discussions on anything controversial would be especially helpful for me, but not required. I'll be updating those pages based on my understanding, so it'll be helpful to start from a base of current understanding rather than what the understanding was a year ago.
Thanks for your help! -- RobLa ( talk) 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of work to be done on this set of articles. Here's what I think needs to happen, and would love some help in actually making it happen:
I'll hopefully get to this next week, but would love it if someone beat me to the punch on this. -- RobLa ( talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have created a request for comment on the flagged revisions trial, motivated by an unexpected, unannounced and publicly undiscussed change of configuration removing the reviewer usergroup. Please weigh in there. Cenarium ( talk) 13:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have some concerns about this program, first of all while I am glad to see that something is finally being done on the issue of overprotection, I do worry that Flagged protection will simply replace it. Specificly I'm worried that patrolled revision will simply make the situation worse, preventing several well known editors from immediatly updating a majority of articles. I don't know, to me it seems like a slippery slope and in a lot of situations I feel semiprotection would be favorable over the highest level of security offered by this inituative. Basically, I'm afraid that several pages will be prevented from immediate changes without much of a criteria. Is there any talk of criteria that will be used to evaluate these pages before the highest level of protection is offered? -- Deathawk ( talk) 20:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
A week ago I posted proposed revisions to the first 4 paragraphs in the "critical thinking" article on "talk". Short explanation too of why each is being suggested. No responses yet from any of the administrators or watchers of that article. In contrast to what happened initially, which was that I naively tried to edit the article and my edits were immediatly deleted. Seeing your guidance: How long should I wait for responses/discussion on the talk pages? Is there a way to post the draft revision of the article (without the explanatory interjections)? Thanks. -- Pfacione ( talk) 22:05, 16 July 2010 (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 |
I like this, some suggestions:
-- Apoc2400 ( talk) 20:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Semi-flagged protection has disadvantages too, if I understand it correctly. Any change (good or bad) by a new or IP editor locks a page, preventing "normal editors" (autoconfirmed non-reviewers) from making visible changes. An exception allowing all editors to undo vandalism (revert a flagged change and unflag) could reduce the impact. Certes ( talk) 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't get the point of these. Why not just use sighted versions instead? Pages that have them don't have to be configured to use them by default. Also, passive flags tend to be just extra complexity that is neglected, like new page patrol here. On .de wiki, the RC patrol flags for articles are tied to sighting, and so there are barely any unpatrolled new pages there. Aaron Schulz 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Why are there 'reviewer' and 'moderator' groups. Both may as well have rollback and such (which seem to be the differences). Also, autopromote only works on the group canonically named 'editor'. You can edit the UI to make 'editor' have the name 'reviewer' though. Aaron Schulz 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
About rollback: I don't think we should grant reviewers rollback rights. Rollback is sometimes removed due to misuse in disputes, and having to remove reviewer rights together would be drama-seeking. Many admins would also dislike an autopromotion to rollback, even with strong requirements. Rollback is really a tool-like rights, and some users obtained it even though they were not autoconfirmed, so inversely, rollbackers shouldn't be given reviewer rights. I had proposed it for 'moderators' but if we don't use this usergroup
Cenarium (
talk) 23:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest automatically making users into Reviewer after 3 months and 100 edits. It can be given or taken away by an administrator manually as well. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 20:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION PAGE AT Wikipedia talk:Reviewers
I edited the proposal a bit. Are you ok with this? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest removing the "Full Flag Protection" option. Not because it is bad, but because it complicates the proposal. Normal full protection will still be available. If needed, Full Flag Protection can be proposed later. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think edits by autoconfirmed users should also require flagging by reviewers. On the other hand, it should be easy to become a reviewer. Just having edits checked by someone is a big improvement. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to define who reviewers are. I suggest we set a starting point and invite people to suggest changes of the proposal. How about 3 months + 100 edits. That should be enough to keep out vandals and sockpuppets, but low enough to let anyone with honest intentions be a reviewer. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION PAGE AT Wikipedia talk:Reviewers
I suggest the following requirements for flagged protection:
-- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
How about instead of a formal trial, we let this be rolled in gradually as more pages are flag-protected? Passive flagging cannot possible cause any harm, so no trial should be necessary for that. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I like this proposal, and think it could gain enough support to move forward. I suggest putting some pointers to here up at the centralized discussions board and the community portal noticeboard.-- ragesoss ( talk) 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
So how will flagged reviews appear to the 'passer by looking up something'? What is the procedure to ensure that 'most changes' are dealt with rapidly (ie tweaks, updates and similar uncontentious additions)? Who will monitor articles where there is a degree of controversy, a rapidly changing situation, or very obscure topics? Who will monitor the monitors? What happens if a patrolled article is shown to have been changed in a negative direction?
Has there been any statistical analysis of changes to articles - what percentage are 'neutrally changed or improved', 'minor errors and confusions, promptly corrected' and 'malicious, argumentative, pseudo-humorous and similar' etc?
There should be a review of the situation at 'certain points' after the system has been settled in to see how effective it is. It may be more appropriate to have certain categories of article flagged and others merely checked and monitored.
The Keynes quote about changing views as the situation changes can be appropriate - but not always. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
One issue that occurred to me a moment ago was that, in the case of full flagged-protection, the usual disclaimer of "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version" would not quite apply: by definition revisions which are flagged are endorsed to some degree. Does this constitute a conflict with current dispute processes and, if so, is there a simple way around the problem? {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we start polling on this please? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You could advertise it at the village pump too. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll probably have more questions later. Thanks in advance. Protonk ( talk) 18:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a few questions that I could not see addressed elsewhere (sorry if I missed where they are answered).
The line "Flagged protection is a proposal to allow administrators to enable an "active" flag on a given article. Reviewers can flag revisions, and the version viewed by readers by default is the latest flagged revision." seems to be causing some confusion in the poll, as it appears to contradict the table in the next section. Should it be clarified to say that IP edits to semiprotected pages and all non-admin edits to fully protected pages are not viewed by default? Right now it looks just like flagged revisions until you read further, so its contradictory at this time. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 19:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
So, I'm imagining all currently protected pages (except WP:MAIN, etc.) would be switched over to flagged protection for the duration of the two month testing period? -- Kendrick7 talk 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
What are the trial conditions? I mean, I'm a long way out from science, but in my experience there are normally measures put in place at the outset which are used to indicate the success or failure of a trial. It would be nice to see some thinking on this before the trial begins, to save divisiveness after the trial ends. What are we looking for with this trial? There doesn't seem to be any indication of what the purpose of the trial is, or to what articles it applies to. Is it only BLP's, or all articles? Is it a subset of BLP's, so we have a control group, or are we comparing against the previous two months worth of data? What comparisons points are there? Is there a way to randomise between semi-protecting and flagging, by which I mean, could the devs whip up a randomiser so that when an admin goes to semi-protect, it will either semi-protect or flag? What are we looking to achieve with this trial? Better protection for BLP's? If so, what do we compare? And what else will we measure? Will we look at whether anonymous editing drops off? And if so, is two months a long enough period? And what level of drop off is acceptable? I think it is silly polling on whether the trial should happen. It's far better to work out how to run the trial. Refusing to run the trial means we learn nothing. I take it that after the two months the Wikipedia will be restored to the functionality it has now while the community discusses the trial and works out what lessons have been learnt? Maybe a two week discussion and reflection period and then a poll on whether and how to roll out fully? Hiding T 14:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If the trial is accepted, before the implementation, we should create /implementation and /trial subpages to discuss the issues. I think guidelines should be created at WIkipedia:Flagged protection, Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions and 'Wikipedia:Flagging guideline' (encompassing patrolling, reviewing and validating), and an informal page Wikipedia:Reviewers.
When all this is done, we can implement the two-month trial and at the end, start a community discussion on whether we want to implement flagged protection and patrolled revisions (separately). The default is: stop the implementations, so we'd need consensus to continue one or the other implementation. What do you think ? Cenarium ( talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
←Is there any issue with starting this discussion now? The poll result seems certain. Kevin ( talk) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Created
Implementation and
Trial subpages. We need to complete and agree on the implementation 'principles', and work on the trial conduct and draft policies. It should be fine to start with preliminary discussions before the end of the poll.
Cenarium (
talk) 00:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I am fairly certain I know the answer to this, but I would simply like to make sure: would the implementation/trial of this proposal in any way affect unprotected pages? I believe that it doesn't, but I would like to make sure before voting. ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 20:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
About bringing the community's attention to this... isn't it time yet? A watchlist notice would help to bring the opinions of a lot more people, and as I remember we had this for the last poll at an earlier stage. Chamal talk 05:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from the article:
"When an autoconfirmed user edits a semi flagged protected page, the new revision is automatically reviewed when the previous one is. But not when the previous one is not, to avoid insertions of unnoticed vandalism or violations of policies. This second case should happen quite rarely, as edits are continually flagged by reviewers."
This is not very clear.
Questions to try to understand this:
- the new revision is automatically reviewed when the previous one is WHAT? Reviewed?
- What does "automatically reviewed" mean?? - isn't review a "manual" process, done by a human reviewer?
- "but the new revision is not reviewed when the previous one is not". Is this supposed to mean the new revision CANNOT BE reviewed before the earlier revision is reviewed and approved???? If so, it would be clearer to say that.
Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
One of the BLP's I've taken an interest in is subject to frequent vandalism, POV editing, etc. Much of it gets reverted or edited by the various people watching. Something I've been doing is once every week or two I a diff against my last edit to detect vandalism or POV text that managed to slip past the the editing/correction by multiple parties. What I'd like to be able to do is to flag that a particular version is "good" meaning that in my opinion the net edits since my last edit or flagging have been constructive. These flags would only be visible to me.
Personal flags would also be useful to someone that visits an article intermittently and is also interested in the changes since the last visit. I watchlist them but would love it if there was a way for me to flag a particular edition and much later I could go back and do a diff against that edition. In this case I'm interested in the net changes made and normally don't care about the day to day edits. -- Marc Kupper| talk 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
On account of the fact that Brion has indicated that turning FlaggedRevs on on en.wiki is a Big Deal that is going to take a lot of optimisation, performance upgrades and load balancing to avoid crashing the site like they did with the first rollout of the AbuseFilter, there's nothing to lose by getting the ball rolling on that ASAP. Accordingly, I have filed T20314. Start the clock... :D Happy‑ melon 20:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
A test implementation on testwiki would be great for testing beforehand, however. Cenarium ( talk) 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I submitted T20334 for a test implementation. Cenarium ( talk) 02:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
A poll on autopromotion is drafted here, help in its elaboration is welcome. Cenarium ( talk) 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been following very closely to this discussion so the question I'm asking might have been answered somewhere. But I've tried for a few hours today to figure out when exactly the trial period is. The only thing I seem to be certain is that the poll has ended on April 1st, the trial period will be two months, but I still don't know if it already started or when it will. Can someone help? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.4.64 ( talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
So, are we waiting for some development. Isn't vandalism higher during the summer? Sad, there has been no progress since April? Can we publicize what proponents can do, here? -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 23:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that now we can formally request the implementation. The poll on autopromotion for reviewers closed as no consensus. There are still a few unresolved issues at the implementation subpage, they can be handled by developers at bugzilla, and we'll probably have enough time to finish to set up most of the policies before the implementation. It's T20244. Cenarium ( talk) 22:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone play with the idea of making non-reviewed revisions automatically visible after some time, say, 17 hours after the " last known good" version, with various additional effects? This would address at least two issues:
Possible additional bells and whistles:
Any thoughts? - 7-bubёn >t 15:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Could we have more details in the project page answering these questions:
At the moment the current version just says "During the trial, semi flagged protection is intended to be used with the same requirements as for semi-protection, and full flagged protection (see below), with the same requirements as for full-protection." Unfortunately, I couldn't find any policy which actually details these criteria beyond a comment on WP:RPP that "Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection is usually used only to prevent IP and new user vandalism". WP:PROTECT is surprisingly silent on the issue, although it does refer to the essay WP:ROUGH. Although it makes some sense to allow admins to apply judgement and discretion for PP, it may be appropriate for something as contraversial and polarising as flagging to have more definite criteria.
The current version gives "Reviewers" rights over semi-flagged pages and "Admins" rights over full-flagged protection. Could someone explain - in the project space - the rationale for giving admins these rights rather than reviewers.
Rather like WP:CSD, I think we need a clear understanding of what kind of edits will be disapproved and a clear bias in favour of approval. I've started a proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Flagged protection approval - please edit away! AndrewRT( Talk) 23:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we tag this as {{ historical}}? There seems to be little hope of an actual implementation. Kevin ( talk) 22:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The NYT just posted an article related to this: Cohen, Noam (2009-08-25). "Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2009-08-25.. But it seems to me they got the impact of the trial wrong, as I clarified here: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?permid=42#comment42 - did I get it right, or are "wikipedia officials" talking about a different kind of trial? There have been a confusing array of proposals out there.... -- NealMcB ( talk) 03:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reviewers have access to Special:OldReviewedPages, listing all flagged protected pages where the latest revision is not confirmed.
This could be interpreted as saying that access to OldReviewedPages will be limited to reviewers, was that the intent? If this information is treated as confidential it will be more difficult to measure and report on the impact of the change. Since the information is inconveniently available by scanning page histories, I can't see what gain could be achieved by making access more difficult. Does anyone oppose changing the page to read "Special:OldReviewedPages is public list of all flagged protected pages where the latest revision is not confirmed"? -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
First, it was the new living biographies policy and now it's the flagged protection policy: I learned about the changes through the news media rather from Wikipedia itself even though I visit multiple times a day. Editors are not being given enough notice that major policy shifts are about to take place and where they can join the discussion before the final vote takes place. Issues such as these should appear on the main page asking for more feedback from editors before being put into affect. Wikipedia has no problems asking for money or for users to take a survey on the main page so why not asking for feedback on issues that shake the foundations of the site and its philosophy to the core. The majority of editors are actually improving content rather than playing the Wikipedia power struggle game and scanning the policy proposals (of which there are too many to follow all of them anyway). I have in the past contributed to discussions about flagged revisions and would have done so more if I knew that the debate was coming close to an end.
The idea of flagged revisions is interesting and if there was a problem of excessive vandalism I would be for it. However, all the proponents of flagged revision --- with all of their rhetoric about vandals --- seem to neglect that Wikipedia has still been getting better overall despite vandalism. This means the current model is still working and all this doomsday talk about vandals ruining Wikipedia has no basis in reality. I've even seen quotes in article about this change saying that Wikipedia's slowdown in article creation is related to the site's quality and therefore flagged revisions are needed. Jam-packed with non-sequitors! It seems to occur to no one that the reason article creation has slowed down is because Wikipedia's coverage is largely complete. If a person cannot see that, their judgement as a Wikipedian is basically worthless. Flagged revisions are not necessary at this moment in time and most of the arguments that support them are flawed. If Wikipedia doesn't start notifying editors better about major changes, article creation will suffer. Why? Because if there's a third time a major policy change occurs and I didn't feel like the community was informed enough beforehand, I'll stop contributing. Jason Quinn ( talk) 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
To be fair to Jason Quinn, the discussion wasn't that widely advertised. Most Wikipedians that don't watch the village pump constantly probably didn't notice. On the other hand, this is just a test implementation and there should be an even bigger community discussion at the end of it. The press is somewhat jumping ahead. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed to use a talknotice to better advertize in the future. But there's been no responses yet. The discussion on continuing the implementation at the end of the trial should be massively advertized. Cenarium ( talk) 15:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, unless it's something displayed in a 72pt bold, bright red, flashing marquee in readers' faces or having a bot spam announcements to all >1 million user talk pages, I don't see how it's going to get more into the discussion. Perhaps this is more symbolic is turnouts in many U.S. elections if not worse. That or that many people have been under a rock for about the past year. Or maybe some just plain DGAF or are otherwise ambivalent about the whole thing. MuZemike 00:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the standard of review being proposed for patrolled revisions? Saying an article about a living person does not violate WP:BLP is not so simple. Are we talking about:
One arguably might need to do all of the above (and more) to assert the article does not violate BLP. It could require more work than a featured article review.
While I am not a lawyer, it seems to me there is also a potential legal issue here. As I understand it, while the Wikimedia Foundation is largely protected from legal action over article content by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, this protection does not apply to individual editors. While I suspect an editor who makes a good faith edit while ignoring some defamatory content faces little risk, I'm concerned about the potential exposure for a reviewer attesting that an article is free of such content, particularly in a way that other reviewers will then rely on.
One possible solution might be to make it clear that reviewers are only expected to do 1. above and that subsequent reviewers should not rely completely on the patrolled flag. Another approach, at least for the first review, might be to ask the editors who follow the article if they know of any outstanding issues with the current revision and set the patrolled flag the first time only if no such issues are raised. The initial reviewer would then be merely summarizing a collective judgement, not asserting their own opinion. (I first raised these issues at Wikipedia talk:Patrolled revisions, but no one seems to be watching there.) -- agr ( talk) 23:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out which articles will be flag protected when this is implemented. Is there a discussion somewhere? Will it only be semi-protected and fully protected articles? Thanks. Mahanga Talk 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This mailing list thread may become something of interest. -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 04:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It's time to give it a spin: http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Looks like there are a lot of UI issues that need to be worked out. You can help by leaving comments on the comments page and by becoming an admin there (just ask) and changing the user interface messages yourself. Cheers. -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 03:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a technical question: Will it be possible once flagged protection is implemented to have a page be under both intermediary flagged protection and semiprotection, such that anons can't edit, and autoconfirmed users can submit edits for review? Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Per Webster's New World and other dictionaries, "intermediary" is the wrong word; as an adjective, it means "providing a link between"; it suggests an agent operating between two entities. "Intermediate" is the word we're looking for here, I think. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This has now been delayed for months due to technical requirements, it is also somewhat complicated. I've come up with a much simpler proposal that might do a lot of good, happen sooner, and really help with BLP problems. Please take an open-minded looks at Wikipedia:Targeted Flagging.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 17:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Patrolled_revisions#How is this different from Special:recentchanges->living people? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
"A revision can be confirmed by a reviewer only when the page is semi or intermediately flagged protected (and not when fully flagged protected). A revision can be validated by an administrator only when the page is fully flagged protected." I think this means to say "A revision can be confirmed by a reviewer who is not an administrator only when the page is semi or intermediately flagged protected (and not when fully flagged protected). When the page is fully flagged protected, only an administrator can confirm." DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
See http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/01/flagged-revisions-your-questions-answered for the latest from the Foundation. - Banyan Tree 05:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have made a new updated version here, what do you think of it ? Cenarium ( talk) 01:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
( repeat of my mail to wikien-l): Hi folks, as of yesterday, I'm working as a contractor at Wikimedia Foundation, helping out with several things, one of which being the Flagged Revs rollout.
One thing I'm going to be helping William and the crew out with is working out some of the unanswered questions in the description of the rollout phase on this set of pages.
I've been following the threads and playing around with the features, but I'm probably not as up to speed on this stuff as many of you are, so I'm sure I'll be begging your indulgence from time-to-time.
If there is anything on the pages above that you know needs correction or clarification based on the existing consensus, please be bold make that fix. Citations back to email discussions on anything controversial would be especially helpful for me, but not required. I'll be updating those pages based on my understanding, so it'll be helpful to start from a base of current understanding rather than what the understanding was a year ago.
Thanks for your help! -- RobLa ( talk) 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of work to be done on this set of articles. Here's what I think needs to happen, and would love some help in actually making it happen:
I'll hopefully get to this next week, but would love it if someone beat me to the punch on this. -- RobLa ( talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have created a request for comment on the flagged revisions trial, motivated by an unexpected, unannounced and publicly undiscussed change of configuration removing the reviewer usergroup. Please weigh in there. Cenarium ( talk) 13:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have some concerns about this program, first of all while I am glad to see that something is finally being done on the issue of overprotection, I do worry that Flagged protection will simply replace it. Specificly I'm worried that patrolled revision will simply make the situation worse, preventing several well known editors from immediatly updating a majority of articles. I don't know, to me it seems like a slippery slope and in a lot of situations I feel semiprotection would be favorable over the highest level of security offered by this inituative. Basically, I'm afraid that several pages will be prevented from immediate changes without much of a criteria. Is there any talk of criteria that will be used to evaluate these pages before the highest level of protection is offered? -- Deathawk ( talk) 20:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
A week ago I posted proposed revisions to the first 4 paragraphs in the "critical thinking" article on "talk". Short explanation too of why each is being suggested. No responses yet from any of the administrators or watchers of that article. In contrast to what happened initially, which was that I naively tried to edit the article and my edits were immediatly deleted. Seeing your guidance: How long should I wait for responses/discussion on the talk pages? Is there a way to post the draft revision of the article (without the explanatory interjections)? Thanks. -- Pfacione ( talk) 22:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)