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 | → | Archive 5 |
I started reading this with some trepidation, but then I smiled. This is actually a really sane proposal. It's the direction Jimbo told me he was hoping for. While I've been against many applications of flagged revisions, this particular way of using it would be non-invasive, and actually improve our soft-security considerably. :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 04:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I request that you be careful about distinguishing flagged revisions from semi-protection? I realize that the proposal is about replacing our current semi-protection system with flagged revisions. But I think it would be easier to understand if you didn't try to mix the two names. Ozob ( talk) 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The only thing that's really ever bugged me with the whole FR thing is the notion that "an edit should be sited if not vandalism", but what about an edit that isn't, but you revert for another reason? Should it be sited and then reverted? Seems a bit of an extra pointless step. This is definitely a good proposal (and pretty much what I assumed FR would be for when implemented here), but I can kinda see a concern with this (not that it's all that different from now, as undo makes things so easy to mistake a vandalism revert with a non-one...) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 12:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This proposal does not really deal with flying attacks made on miscellaneous pages -- I would suggest that there should, in addition to "requested semi-protection" articles, that articles where an IP edit affects an article size substantially, contains certain marginal words (amazing how many vandals collectively have such small imaginations) or redirects an article be automatically "trapped" for review. Collect ( talk) 14:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There are several problems with this proposal:
Ruslik ( talk) 16:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely the best implementation proposal I've seen so far, since it is the only one that will result in a net increase in the openness of Wikipedia and it won't generate huge backlogs. One minor point: a handful of articles ( Evolution is the obvious example) are under continuous attack from a banned user who is prepared to get around our current semi-protection feature. These articles either spend a lot of time fully protected or in a vandalised state. Would it be possible to use a form of "flagged revisions as protection" to assist here? Hut 8.5 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
No way. Anons are the backbone of Wikipedia. We are the surfers who see something awry and correct it. And, statistically, we are right far more often than we are wrong. We are sincere far more often than we are vandals. I support the idea that Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for libel, but I really hope that no-one here believes in an encylcopaedia that some animals can edit more than others. -- 78.148.83.181 ( talk) 01:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Theoretically, I'd be in favour of the change, because it should reduce the number of articles I'm barred from editing (presumably, though, locking will still be needed to deal with disputes and edit wars (?)). I'd be a little nervous, though, about how responsibly the system will be operated. There will be a lot of edits to review, and some might take a view (wildly mistaken, I think) that IP edits are less likely to be worthwhile. Some editors might even start to reject them as a matter of course, to save time. Then there's the worry of mission creep - will we start to see all kinds of new and innovative reasons why pages should be flag-protected?
Some people will think I should just log in, and that erases the problem. But the circumstances under which I tend to edit Wikipedia (and I believe there are millions like me) is that if I see a bit of bad grammar or some other mistake that's easily rectified, I'll jump in. The extra few seconds it would take to log in will probably discourage me most of the time, particularly if all I want to do is add an apostrophe. I think the overall effect, if this became required, would be that WP would lose a large volume of good edits from users like me. I'd say I'm like one of the worms in the Wikigarden!
So I think there's a problem if users are developing the idea that anons are a problem that needs somehow dealing with. This would be wrong-headed (because, on balance, I think we are the opposite of a problem), and corrosive (because there's a risk of losing your worms). It's about attitde more than technology, IMO.
PS I'm the same person as 78.148.83.181, above. -- 78.144.183.215 ( talk) 22:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
PPS These concerns are more worries than predictions, and things may turn out fine. Perhaps something to be watched during the trial phase, though. -- 78.144.183.215 ( talk) 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the system started to not work so well from the point-of-view of an anon user, it could be about the degree of uncertainty that the change would be authorised. And since I'm (voluntarily) not part of that process and may not be sufficiently interested to ever check, I may never know if the change went ahead or why it didn't. Even if this uncertainty were unjustified, it might still be discouraging. Plus the instant satisfaction won't be there. -- 78.144.183.215 ( talk) 00:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC) To repeat, though: I do think this is a good proposal and I'm in favour of a trial going ahead on the basis set out. I'm just slightly wondering whether flagging will be taken by people as a great way to be more restrictive (even if they're not consciously thinking of it like that). But perhaps the trial will provide a clear answer to that. -- 78.144.183.215 ( talk) 00:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there a technically robust way to flag / reject individual edits in a succession of edits by IPs? Consider the case where, say, three IPs have been editing the same article; you, as a reviewer, must sort through a dozen of overlapping edits. Some were unproductive but they cannot be undone.... the text as a whole, in its current form, is generally OK but a couple words must be deleted. NVO ( talk) 20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
... and if the technology precludes successive edits by IPs, does it mean that the three IPs from the above example will create three parallel versions of the article and someone has to decide which one will prevail? NVO ( talk) 20:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur that this is a good idea, and it would probably not attract so much opposition than other Flaggedrevs proposals. I believe though that we should keep classic semi-protection (even in long term), of course for non-content pages, and also because there are cases where short semi-protection would still be needed. For full flagged revisions, this could be used similarly as a downgraded full-protection and could also be used for disputes, etc. I had drafted something about that, see User:Cenarium/Flagged revisions/Confirmed. I proposed there that another usergroup, 'moderator', containing admins, be created, able to flag fully-flagged-protected articles, since the admin group may be too small. Cenarium (Talk) 14:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea as well. I've copyedited the proposal, and clarified that it's not really something integrated into the protection form, but a separate interface (I guess it wouldn't be impossible to add it to the form, but it would be a lot of work for no benefit). I've also listed a suggested configuration below.
config moved to main proposal page Mr. Z-man 02:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't tested this extensively yet, it may need some changes. Mr. Z-man 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent idea. Surveying a page is far less drastic than semi-protection and would likely be as effective as the latter, possibly more so, since we wouldn't be entirely closing out good-faith users because some people are idiots. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Great idea. I'm opposed to the other proposal for the Flagged Revisions "trial" but I'd definitely support this. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. DS ( talk) 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It's easy for a vandal to register and become autoconfirmed. How does this proposal think such an event should be handled? It would make a semi-flagged protection useless, but contrary to the current system, it might be harder to discover it is happening because a supposedly trusted individual sighted the revision. Basically, the proposal allows vandals to sight their own revisions unless full flagged protection is implemented. -- Mgm| (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I've always thought of flagging as a form of protection, and that it should be used only as an alternative to, and result in a decrease in, traditional protection. It looks like the unsighting will allow autoconfirmeds to effectively revert war, so we'd need to make sure the protection & reversion policies are both updated, so it's clear this isn't a loophole in 3RR.
I think that full & semi flagged protection should work together, they way their current counterparts do now, but I think protection is better suited to some short-term uses; we shouldn't get rid of semi-protection, maybe just limit the time it can be used, i.e. 1 week max before unprotecting, and flagging if necessary. - Steve Sanbeg ( talk) 22:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if there is still any unanswered questions left by this proposal before this is presented to the Wikipedian community and to be voted on perhaps. Y. Ichiro ( talk) 19:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not up-to-speed on what has clearly been a lengthy debate, but the request might benefit from a summary as to why this is a good idea. The method for fixing the problem is elaborated on, but what is the problem that this proposal is attempting to fix? It is apparently designed to "allow anonymous editors and new users to edit protected articles in a limited fashion", but for what reasons? I have no doubt there are such but the opening reads as if it is a proposal to allow a limited amount of additional vandalism, without any obvious benefits. Ben Mac Dui 10:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There is still a little problem in letting autoconfirmed users reviewing articles, they won't necessarily know what it means, and what it implies, so this will lead to a comparatively high number of bad flaggings, especially in articles with a high level of vandalism. It would also introduce another subtlety in editing for them, while we should on the contrary make editing as easy as possible for inexperienced users. Of course autoreview should be automatically granted to them, which they generally won't notice. Overall, the majority of flaggings will be made by experienced users, who would normally be reviewers, so in term of backlog, giving reviewer rights to all autoconfirmed users won't change much. We could still make an auto promotion with higher requirements, and a rollback-like process for granting. There is also a good number of articles persistently targeted by sockpupetters, some have to be fully protected. A way to handle them would be to deactivate autoreview for autoconfirmed users there, so make an option of it, enabled by default. Thoughts ? Cenarium (Talk) 15:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
If it is not possible to turn off the ability to review in individual cases (that is if any autoconfirmed user has the ability to review), then this isn't flagged revisions any more. It's been watered down too much to be a good test. Reviewer is an ability to be given out with some thought, and to be taken away if misused. It needs at least much thought as giving out rollback, if not more. NOT automatically. Else I'll be arguing strongly that we should be blocking for inappropriate reviews. (Even if they were good faith, if there's any chance at all that the judgement is still skewed) ++ Lar: t/ c 02:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I am taking the liberity to close this poll early because I think we already have an idea what this proposal is missing. I think it's time we should be moving forward and start making changes to it as we see fit. This poll is generating an unexpected amount of drama, I think it is getting to the point where it is counterproductive, and people have lost the sense of direction of where we are going with FR. There are still a lot of specifics that have been left out in the dark that needs to be brought up, and I do not think it is time to dicuss that in a poll. Y. Ichiro ( talk) 19:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hate to do this, but this is Flagged Revisions, just applied to a small subset of articles. FlaggedRevs is a technical bit of software - how it is used is a different question. This appears to have been something not widely understood by voters on both sides. Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
We need to discuss whether we should give autoreview and review, or autoreview only to autoconfirmed users. I think only autoreview should be given to autoconfirmed users, as 'review' will puzzle inexperienced users, lead to bad mistakes, example: an IP makes a bad edit to a page, one minute later, an autoconfirmed user edits constructively the page, and having little understanding of Flaggedrevs, flags the new revision in complete good faith... Since this is intended for would-be semi-protected pages, this is bound to happen a lot, and we would have no way to remove reviewing rights for the user, except if we simulate autoconfirmed status with an auto-promotion, but even so, we would be forced to remove the 'autoreview' rights also for the well-intended user... So this would destroy the good intentions of the proposal. In the same time, most edits will be automatically reviewed, so it shouldn't add much to the backlog if we use a reviewer usergroup and give autoreview to autoconfirmed users. Cenarium (Talk) 18:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
1. We need to protect living people from the havoc that can be wreaked on their lives by inaccurate BLPs. 2. We need to hold together a community that is being torn apart by a drive to implement FRs in a clumsy and ill-defined way that is not sufficiently restricted to prevent 'creep' across the whole encyclopedia 3. Most of the arguments against FRs still apply to Flagged Protection - some would call it 'FR lite' others a more precise and clearly delimited version of FRs. 4. It's a foundation principle of Wikipedia that anyone should be able to edit it. To change a foundation principle must require huge backing from across the community - much more than is available at present. 5. There don't seem to be many people, on either side, that wish to reach a compromise that a REAL consensus could form around, despite Jimbo clearly giving us the opportunity to do this. I thought Flagged Protection might offer the basis for such a compromise, but noone seems keen to shift their position. 6. Technical solutions are not likely to be as effective as solutions that reward good WP behaviour.
I'd really like to support this, and put it forward as a possible compromise option in the increasingly heated FR debate. This would require a lot more willingness to shift from both the FR Fanatics and the FR Oppositionists, without that willingness to shift and given the problems inherent in restricting rights to edit in any way, the best I can do is remain neutral. Riversider2008 ( talk) 14:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible, under this system, to institute a flagged protection that will automatically lapse after x days, like Protection currently does? NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me because it probably says somewhere and I just can't see it. Am I correct in assuming that implementing this proposal would not be intended to preclude or replace stricter uses of the flagged revisions system (e.g. on BLPs)? i.e. If we had a "Flagged Protection" option similar to what is proposed here, we would not be removing the option to have a German-style flagged revision system on BLPs? Correct? Or not? CIreland ( talk) 18:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
When I first was involved with Wiki in 2004 it was a different kettle of fish. Wikiworld was about creating new pages and checking old ones, but it was mainly the feeling of spreading free knowledge that was at the forefront of my mind. Improving the articles was easy and there were many many of them to create. It was a pleasurable if short lived time as I had to give Wiki up to concentrate on life for a while.
When I rejoined mid last year I was put off because I missed the creation of the new, so I spent a few months mooching around Wikiworld and seeing what was there, put it in my browser as my search engine and carried on. After a while though, I started spotting mistakes and wanting to contribute and eventually I got infected again.
In those months I realised that I actually enjoy this challenge more than the old one. Sure it was a good feeling to create something new, but now I have to research much more on every task I attempt, and I have to learn more to be able to input more. I like it and I have grown and changed to accommodate this new Wikiworld. We also have to accept that in the attempt to gain more accurate and publicly trusted information we need to perhaps let Wikiworld change too.
I do not want to stop anybody from having the feelings I had when I first edited a line, re-wrote someone else's badly written page or even created one, and I welcome any change that will make Wiki more accessible to editors both established and new.
We have to accept that there are people out there who take pleasure from deleting a whole page and putting ARSE there instead, that is unacceptable. We have to show each other and the rest of the world that we can achieve harmony and accuracy of content and I believe leading they way in this is through whatever the outcome is of these discussions.
I support these proposed changes because I think it achieves those two goals, more open editing and at the same time more flexibility on control of the ARSE element.
Hope we can get the results of the trial soon and that it is a positive outcome.--
Chaosdruid (
talk) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been discussion about the current auto-confirmed threshold being too short. I wonder if we can raise it to 7 days and 50 edits? or 90 days with 100 edits instead for reviewer status (TOR proxy autoconfirm threshold is 90 days with 100 edits), for the auto-promotion of reviewer status? Y. Ichiro ( talk) 07:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Does liability for libel not significantly increase when content is moderated? IANAL but is it not true that while fewer problematic edits will slip through, those that do could prove far more serious both for Wikipedia and the approver(s)? For example:
In the Prodigy case, Prodigy was sued for defamation based upon the statements made by one of its customers in a Prodigy discussion group (or bulletin board). In determining whether Prodigy was liable for the defaming statements of its customer in this case, a New York state judge was left to determine whether Prodigy was a "distributor" of information, such as a bookstore or library, or whether Prodigy was a "publisher" of information, such as a newspaper. As a mere distributor, Prodigy would not be liable for the statement. In contrast, if Prodigy was considered a publisher (with greater control over the information's content), Prodigy would be liable. In a decision that shocked most on-line service providers, the judge held that, as a result of Prodigy's well-publicized policies of monitoring and censoring its forums, Prodigy was a publisher and was potentially liable for the defaming statement. Although the case was settled by the parties and Prodigy moved for a withdrawal of the judge's decision, the judge refused.
This is a significant change that appears to be a kneejerk reaction to criticism from old media, and thus one that requires more deliberation. Note that the offending edit was not quoted as fact (no sane journalist would use Wikipedia without checking references), rather used to attack Wikipedia despite the content being almost instantly removed. Perhaps further rules could be added to limit the effects, for example autoapproval of pending edits that are not reviewed within a relatively short time (e.g. a day rather than a month ala wp.de).
Anyway, in other news I left my computer off for a week and it didn't get any viruses, though I still wouldn't call this trial a complete success. -- samj in out 13:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
No. By all means contact Godwin if you think that flagged revisions were implemented by the WMF and brought into use on other Wikis without him hearing about it (maybe he was having a nap at the time) but the issue for Prodigy was that it was Prodigy who were, at least ostensibly, monitoring and editing the content. There is already a whole bunch of people monitoring and editing the content of Wikipedia; the important thing (at least, the principle that the WMF wish to rely on) is that those people are not the WMF and do not work for the WMF. That would still be the case with flagged revisions. The "blame" for anything that happens would continue to be with the community, not with the WMF. 87.254.93.202 ( talk) 14:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
An interesting flip here from the previous vote on having trials of flagged revs. On that poll people who opposed flagged revs in at least some form often opposed because they saw a "slippery slope" to full implementation (I was one of those), whereas here a number of people are opposing one possible trial because they assume there will be no further trials and that we'll never have flagged revisions on BLPs (which is the real concern for many if not most).
Of course that is possible, and there are people above who say they would only support flagged revisions. But I would ask those opposing per Scott McDonald's rationale to consider the following:
In general I'm disappointed that both sides of this debate have dug their heels in to such a degree, and that throughout this multi-page debate there has been no shortage of wild accusations and, quite frankly, rank incivility ("you're destroying the Wiki way!" "you're immature and don't care about real people!"). Like anything else on Wikipedia we need to work together, and we should all be open to compromise and multiple approaches. The fact is, none of us have experience with flagged revisions on en.wp, so it's remarkable how sure most of us are about what it will or will not do. Recognizing that fact might make us all more open to different means of testing and using this feature, and it will certainly make it easier to talk to one another. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In this comment Geometery guy asks Lar if the proposal would receive Lar's support if it:
I would like to build on this since, as an initial opposer of this proposal, I would support the proposal if these modifications were to be made. I therefore propose that the proposal be modified to set these as new conditions. Would this be something the supporters of the original proposal are happy with? Would this be something the opposers of the original proposal are happy with? Is it an effective compromise? GDonato ( talk) 16:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if this will make things clearer for people as to why this proposal was written in the first place. Y. Ichiro ( talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I added the full flagged protection feature to the implementation from Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Trial. The result is here: User:Ruslik0/Sandbox2. I think the full flagged protection is a useful idea that should be included. Ruslik ( talk) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Several people have expressed interest in tweaks to this proposal, to make it slightly more restrictive. This post is an analysis of the options for modification to this proposal, for feasibility, (undesirable) side effects, and desirability for those who opposed the original proposal for wider use. I cannot speak for desirability for those who desire wider use as I am myself opposed to such and wish to not misrepresent their opinions. The suggestions follow, in no particular order:
Increase autoconfirmed threshold
Restrict reviewing to a new usergroup above autoconfirmed
Endorse wider use on biographies of living persons (BLPs)
Use autoreview
only for autoconfirmed
users
review
right, otherwise pages that receive unsighted revisions will remain unsighted permanently.autoconfirmed
users autoreview
effectively discards the anti-vandal elements of requiring a group above autoconfirmed—since an autoconfirmed
vandal can get their vandalism sighted through autoreview
—while still requiring a group above autoconfirmed.I'm open to checking out more options, and this is primarily my opinion (though I've aimed to stay relatively objective) and could be wrong. Any thoughts? {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 19:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement on the efficiency of the proposal for certain blps, and so that we should also be able to use classic Flaggedrevs. So I propose a merge like this: we give autoreview to autoconfirmed users (when the latest version is flagged, the new revision is flagged) but not review, and we use an auto-promotion to reviewer rights to be determined, with higher requirements than autoconfirmed. Cases where a non-reviewer autoconfirmed user edits a page with latest version unreviewed should be quite rare, so this won't change the 'spirit' of the proposal much, and if we notice that a good editor is often in this situation, we can give the rights, and we can also tell the user how to request them on the explanation message displayed after editing. Additionally, we create a usergroup 'moderator', able to validate articles, for articles that would be fully protected otherwise. The bridge between classic flaggedrevs and semi-flag-protection is then to have the option to disable autoreview for autoconfirmed users (except reviewers) on a particular page, in the form of a default-checked check box for example. This would have to be requested as this is not available in the current extension. For high-risk blps or other very problematic pages, we can disable autoreview. Cenarium (Talk) 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
# Limit it to mainspace only
$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces = array( NS_MAIN );
# Don't set any FlaggedRevs level for new pages
$wgFlaggedRevsAutoReviewNew = false;
# Pages display the current version by default - i.e. unprotected
$wgFlaggedRevsOverride = false;
# This requires it to be turned on by an admin for each page
$wgFlaggedRevsReviewForDefault = true;
# Flagging types
$wgFlaggedRevTags = array( 'protection' => 2 );
# Number of levels (full=2/semi=1/none=0)
$wgFlaggedRevValues = 2;
# Restrict autoconfirmed to flagging semi-protected
$wgFlagRestrictions = array(
'protection' => array( 'review' => 1 ),
);
# Group permissions for autoconfirmed
$wgGroupPermissions'autoconfirmed']['autoreview' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'autoconfirmed']['movestable' = true;
# Reviewer group
$wgGroupPermissions'reviewer']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'reviewer']['unreviewedpages' = true;
# Giving reviewer rights to rollbackers
$wgGroupPermissions'rollbacker']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'rollbacker']['unreviewedpages' = true;
# Rights for bots
$wgGroupPermissions'bot']['unreviewedpages' = true;
# Group permissions for moderators
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['unreviewedpages' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['validate' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['unwatchedpages' = true; #?
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['rollback' = true; #?
$wgAddGroups'moderator'][] = 'reviewer'; #?
# Group permissions for sysops
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['unreviewedpages' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['validate' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['stablesettings' = true;
$wgAddGroups'sysop'][] = 'reviewer';
$wgRemoveGroups'sysop'][] = 'reviewer';
$wgAddGroups'sysop'][] = 'moderator';
$wgRemoveGroups'sysop'][] = 'moderator';
# Auto promotion to reviewer status, requirements to be determined
$wgFlaggedRevsAutopromote = false; #TBD
# Can users make comments that will show up below flagged revisions?
$wgFlaggedRevsComments = true; #?
This proposal takes away the reasons why people who opposed the trial would support this proposal: It does create new hierarchy (which is bad) and makes it more complicated (also bad). The point of this proposal was that autoconfirmed users can review non-vandalism IP edits, thus having many people to do the job without complicated structures. After all, there can't be anything bad that an IP can add which an autoconfirmed user can't but you propose we allow the autoconfirmed user to add the bad content but deny them to review bad content by another? I do not see why there should be a difference and I for one would oppose such an implementation. I don't see why you have to make a good proposal (allow more editing with less work and no new hierarchies) worse (adding hierarchy and less people to do the job)... So Why 09:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I would strike out '$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['review'] = true;'. This makes vandal reviews pretty easy. Autoreview should be good enough most of the time, and admins can clear out those edits that are not autoreviewed. If the backlog somehow is too large, we can set $wgAutopromote['review'] to something higher than autoconfirmed, without actually messing with autoconfirmed. Aaron Schulz 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to allow those newly confirmed with autoreviewer rights to become "mentored" for, say, 50 edits where their work is flagged and enters a pool so that already experienced reviewers or admins can check their work ?
Alternatively an approach similar to Distributed Proofreaders could be adopted (although a more formal approach) where an instructional quiz asks them to do some basic editing - on DP it is not recorded until they pass and are allowed to take it as many times they like till they get it correct. I can imagine it would take the form of asking which to allow and which not to etc.
I appreciate this would cause extra work but it would mean that at least the fledgling could be helped in the first weeks.-- Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What about WP:GAMErs who do their fifty and then go to hell?-- Cerejota ( talk) 07:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to have a page similar to Oldreviewedpages, for validated revisions ? That is, listing all full flag protected pages with a latest revision that is not validated ? That would be useful to monitor disputes. We'll still have to create a template, something like {{requestvalidation}}, for users to request that an admin (or moderator) validates a revision, similarly to {{ editprotected}}, because the revision has consensus or is a non-controversial change to the latest validated version. Cenarium (Talk) 18:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Idea for better reliability on Wikipedia (and vandal screening):
I posted this a while ago on the village pump (it got a mixed review) ... I'll float it one last time here with some tweaks ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.228.145 ( talk) 22:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested Trial 13: Three month trial of all BLPs + flagged protection? Basically, would FlaggedRevs on BLPs and individually selected articles be a reasonable compromise? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Trials must be limited as voted in the poll, so this is not a valid trial. Cenarium (Talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
See WP:Flagged protection and BLPs for more details on this kind of proposal Fritzpoll ( talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
In order to address BLP concerns in addition to opening up the project, I have concocted a trial of the two systems occurring simultaneously in my userspace at User:Fritzpoll/BLPFlaggedRevs. This bit of spam is neede to get more eyes on it to get a well-rounded proposal before moving it to project space. No polls, please, but edit freely both the main page and the talkpage Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
We now have a number of parallel discussions now ongoing that consider possible implementations of the FlaggedRevs functionality, covering a huge range of configuration options; however, they all have a number of things in common, and I think that these areas should be the focus of our attention. Foremost, every proposal must either include an explanation of, or make an assumption that readers are familiar with, the FlaggedRevs user interface and how the flagging process works.
It is my belief that an important step forward for FlaggedRevs on en.wiki is to create a full but accessible documentation for the aspects of FlaggedRevs that are invariant across all the proposals: how pages are reviewed, how flagging is encouraged, how the workflow of the wiki is affected. An easily-accessible explanation of what the extension will entail and what features it will provide will, I think, go a long way towards resolving some of the innumerable 'trivial' concerns with the entire principle, and leave us free to focus on the important and legitimate issues.
This documentation needs to be independent of any particular configuration of FlaggedRevs, and focus only on the aspects that apply to all users on all wikis. It needs, in effect, to be "site neutral". Partly for this reason, I propose that we write this documentation on http://www.mediawiki.org, in its public-domain Help: namespace. This way, our work will be accessible to any other wiki that wishes to consider FlaggedRevs, and we can ensure a fair and neutral representation of the system. mediawiki.org is a website run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is part of its SUL network: if you have a global account, you already have a login there - you should be logged in automatically. It runs MediaWiki just like en.wiki, and all the same features are available; it has most of the same community standards as en.wiki although its focus is on the documentation of the MediaWiki software. And it's where all our help content is running away to anyway :D. Since it will be a public-domain resource, once written it can be copied or moved in its entirety without any of the licensing issues that bug us constantly on normal wikis, so we can get it back here without any trouble at all, while moving it from here would be much more difficult.
I have begun work on a framework for the documentation on the appropriate page at mediawiki.org. I have added a few notes on the talk page for those who haven't been to mediawiki.org before. If anyone is interested in helping with this little project, your assistance would be very much appreciated. Happy‑ melon 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose to change the proposal in the following ways:
# Limit it to mainspace only
$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces = array( NS_MAIN );
# Don't set any FlaggedRevs level for new pages
$wgFlaggedRevsAutoReviewNew = false;
# Pages display the current version by default - i.e. unprotected
$wgFlaggedRevsOverride = false;
# This requires it to be turned on by an admin for each page
$wgFlaggedRevsReviewForDefault = true;
# Flagging types
$wgFlaggedRevTags = array( 'protection' => 2 );
# Number of levels (full=2/semi=1/none=0)
$wgFlaggedRevValues = 2;
# Restrict autoconfirmed to flagging semi-protected
$wgFlagRestrictions = array(
'protection' => array( 'review' => 1 ),
);
# Group permissions for autoconfirmed
$wgGroupPermissions'autoconfirmed']['autoreview' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'autoconfirmed']['movestable' = true;
# Reviewer group
$wgGroupPermissions'reviewer']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'reviewer']['unreviewedpages' = true;
# Giving reviewer rights to rollbackers ?
$wgGroupPermissions'rollbacker']['review' = true; #?
$wgGroupPermissions'rollbacker']['unreviewedpages' = true; #?
# Rights for bots
$wgGroupPermissions'bot']['unreviewedpages' = true; #?
# Group permissions for moderators
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['unreviewedpages' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['validate' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['rollback' = true; #?
# Group permissions for sysops
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['unreviewedpages' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['validate' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['stablesettings' = true;
$wgAddGroups'sysop'][] = 'reviewer';
$wgRemoveGroups'sysop'][] = 'reviewer';
$wgAddGroups'sysop'][] = 'moderator';
$wgRemoveGroups'sysop'][] = 'moderator';
# Auto promotion to reviewer status, requirements to be determined
$wgFlaggedRevsAutopromote = ; #TBD
# Can users make comments that will show up below flagged revisions?
$wgFlaggedRevsComments = true; #?
Note that technically, the original version can be recovered from this one by setting the autoconfirmed level as auto promotion and removing the moderator rights. Please indicate whether you support or oppose this change, or part of it. Cenarium (Talk) 10:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
autoreview
, it's still acceptable. Some of the elements relating to rollback might be debatable, but I don't particularly mind these. I just hope that flagged-protection proposals can be seen, by those advocating wider use of FlaggedRevs, as independent (rather than exclusive) of the idea of implementing what they advocate—I fail to see any non-political drawbacks to flagged-protection. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
log}} 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the requirements are only raised for BLP concerns and render this semi protection proposal unacceptable, see What happened to review ?, people who want to raise the bar to meet WP:BLP per review should discuss this on Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_BLPs and not here. Mion ( talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deferred revisions is a new proposal to use the abuse filter to defer suspect edits for review without the need to enable 'classic' flagged revisions, but able to work with it. Please express your opinions on the talk page. Cenarium (Talk) 18:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Is a solution found for this:
Is it technical possible to keep Patrol enabled on the Flagged protection articles ? Mion ( talk) 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['review'] = true; is deleted from the proposal, "remove untenable setting" , what is untenable ? Mion ( talk) 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) This comes to the heart of the problem: the proposal in its current state is incomplete: it is (essentially) intended to replace semi-protection when possible, but semi-protection is not only used against vandalism: pov pushing, blpvios, spam, etc, are also reasons for protection. We could multiply the flags - a BLP flag, a POV flag, etc (see
this for the extreme case), and assign to each flag a specific reviewer group, but there ! : welcome bureaucracy and other nasty things the community abhors: it'll never happen. Yes, we could single out the blp case, it's one of our most passionated and polarizing issue, maybe a blp-reviewer group would be more accepted (though I doubt it), but it comes down to trust: they are certain users that we should trust as reviewers, but not as BLP-reviewers. I think not, users who are experienced enough to be granted reviewer rights should be trusted enough to follow the reviewing guidelines, that ... we should determine. This means they have to be more informed of course, this is partly addressed by my proposition to
use edit intros for all blps, and we could also make sure that the latest entry in the stablesettings log is visible to reviewers (as is done currently for semi-protected pages). Flag protection should not be restricted to prevent vandalism (we should not review blpvios, in a blp, or anywhere), but rather somehow like this:
Anything that is either:
should not be reviewed on any page. It is then up to the user's judgment to edit the page, revert, review, etc.
Additionally, if the administrator who flag protected the page indicates one or several reasons for doing so, reviewers should take those in consideration and make especially sure the edits are in compliance with the relevant policies.
In cases autoconfirmed users make problematic edits to a semi flag protected page, we disable non-reviewer autoreview for this page.
In cases there are still problems with reviewing, we use full flag protection for the page.
Reviewer rights can be removed. It would be nice to be able to remove (and reassign) autoconfirmed also.
Now several possible trials:
I'm biased w.r.t. #2 because I feel we shouldn't use flagged revisions preemptively, but instead increase awareness of our blp policy (with the editnotices) and improve patrolling for blps (using patrolled revisions, a form of passive flagged revisions) before attempting some drastic measures.
I would prefer a trial like this (with reviewing guidelines outlined above):
Cenarium ( talk) 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I have made three proposals related to Flaggedrevs. The proposals are a variant of Flag protection (already discussed in #Proposed changes), Patrolled revisions and Deferred revisions. Comments would be appreciated to see if there is support for some of them and what to do next. Cenarium ( talk) 15:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed a version of flagged protection along with patrolled revisions (a passive flag) for consideration here. Cenarium ( talk) 15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a poll on the autopromotion of reviewers at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#Poll on autopromotion, for the trial implementation of flagged protection and patrolled revisions. For information, see general documentation and overview. All users are invited to comment, and to participate in the elaboration of a reviewing guideline as well. Cenarium ( talk) 13:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
"Can edit; a new edit is visible to registered users, but not to readers by default until confirmed by a 'reviewer'". What is a "reader by default"? Is it the same as a non-registered user? Questioningly, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Surely "intermediate"? FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:02, 22 May 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I started reading this with some trepidation, but then I smiled. This is actually a really sane proposal. It's the direction Jimbo told me he was hoping for. While I've been against many applications of flagged revisions, this particular way of using it would be non-invasive, and actually improve our soft-security considerably. :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 04:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I request that you be careful about distinguishing flagged revisions from semi-protection? I realize that the proposal is about replacing our current semi-protection system with flagged revisions. But I think it would be easier to understand if you didn't try to mix the two names. Ozob ( talk) 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The only thing that's really ever bugged me with the whole FR thing is the notion that "an edit should be sited if not vandalism", but what about an edit that isn't, but you revert for another reason? Should it be sited and then reverted? Seems a bit of an extra pointless step. This is definitely a good proposal (and pretty much what I assumed FR would be for when implemented here), but I can kinda see a concern with this (not that it's all that different from now, as undo makes things so easy to mistake a vandalism revert with a non-one...) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 12:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This proposal does not really deal with flying attacks made on miscellaneous pages -- I would suggest that there should, in addition to "requested semi-protection" articles, that articles where an IP edit affects an article size substantially, contains certain marginal words (amazing how many vandals collectively have such small imaginations) or redirects an article be automatically "trapped" for review. Collect ( talk) 14:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There are several problems with this proposal:
Ruslik ( talk) 16:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely the best implementation proposal I've seen so far, since it is the only one that will result in a net increase in the openness of Wikipedia and it won't generate huge backlogs. One minor point: a handful of articles ( Evolution is the obvious example) are under continuous attack from a banned user who is prepared to get around our current semi-protection feature. These articles either spend a lot of time fully protected or in a vandalised state. Would it be possible to use a form of "flagged revisions as protection" to assist here? Hut 8.5 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
No way. Anons are the backbone of Wikipedia. We are the surfers who see something awry and correct it. And, statistically, we are right far more often than we are wrong. We are sincere far more often than we are vandals. I support the idea that Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for libel, but I really hope that no-one here believes in an encylcopaedia that some animals can edit more than others. -- 78.148.83.181 ( talk) 01:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Theoretically, I'd be in favour of the change, because it should reduce the number of articles I'm barred from editing (presumably, though, locking will still be needed to deal with disputes and edit wars (?)). I'd be a little nervous, though, about how responsibly the system will be operated. There will be a lot of edits to review, and some might take a view (wildly mistaken, I think) that IP edits are less likely to be worthwhile. Some editors might even start to reject them as a matter of course, to save time. Then there's the worry of mission creep - will we start to see all kinds of new and innovative reasons why pages should be flag-protected?
Some people will think I should just log in, and that erases the problem. But the circumstances under which I tend to edit Wikipedia (and I believe there are millions like me) is that if I see a bit of bad grammar or some other mistake that's easily rectified, I'll jump in. The extra few seconds it would take to log in will probably discourage me most of the time, particularly if all I want to do is add an apostrophe. I think the overall effect, if this became required, would be that WP would lose a large volume of good edits from users like me. I'd say I'm like one of the worms in the Wikigarden!
So I think there's a problem if users are developing the idea that anons are a problem that needs somehow dealing with. This would be wrong-headed (because, on balance, I think we are the opposite of a problem), and corrosive (because there's a risk of losing your worms). It's about attitde more than technology, IMO.
PS I'm the same person as 78.148.83.181, above. -- 78.144.183.215 ( talk) 22:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
PPS These concerns are more worries than predictions, and things may turn out fine. Perhaps something to be watched during the trial phase, though. -- 78.144.183.215 ( talk) 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the system started to not work so well from the point-of-view of an anon user, it could be about the degree of uncertainty that the change would be authorised. And since I'm (voluntarily) not part of that process and may not be sufficiently interested to ever check, I may never know if the change went ahead or why it didn't. Even if this uncertainty were unjustified, it might still be discouraging. Plus the instant satisfaction won't be there. -- 78.144.183.215 ( talk) 00:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC) To repeat, though: I do think this is a good proposal and I'm in favour of a trial going ahead on the basis set out. I'm just slightly wondering whether flagging will be taken by people as a great way to be more restrictive (even if they're not consciously thinking of it like that). But perhaps the trial will provide a clear answer to that. -- 78.144.183.215 ( talk) 00:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there a technically robust way to flag / reject individual edits in a succession of edits by IPs? Consider the case where, say, three IPs have been editing the same article; you, as a reviewer, must sort through a dozen of overlapping edits. Some were unproductive but they cannot be undone.... the text as a whole, in its current form, is generally OK but a couple words must be deleted. NVO ( talk) 20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
... and if the technology precludes successive edits by IPs, does it mean that the three IPs from the above example will create three parallel versions of the article and someone has to decide which one will prevail? NVO ( talk) 20:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur that this is a good idea, and it would probably not attract so much opposition than other Flaggedrevs proposals. I believe though that we should keep classic semi-protection (even in long term), of course for non-content pages, and also because there are cases where short semi-protection would still be needed. For full flagged revisions, this could be used similarly as a downgraded full-protection and could also be used for disputes, etc. I had drafted something about that, see User:Cenarium/Flagged revisions/Confirmed. I proposed there that another usergroup, 'moderator', containing admins, be created, able to flag fully-flagged-protected articles, since the admin group may be too small. Cenarium (Talk) 14:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea as well. I've copyedited the proposal, and clarified that it's not really something integrated into the protection form, but a separate interface (I guess it wouldn't be impossible to add it to the form, but it would be a lot of work for no benefit). I've also listed a suggested configuration below.
config moved to main proposal page Mr. Z-man 02:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't tested this extensively yet, it may need some changes. Mr. Z-man 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent idea. Surveying a page is far less drastic than semi-protection and would likely be as effective as the latter, possibly more so, since we wouldn't be entirely closing out good-faith users because some people are idiots. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Great idea. I'm opposed to the other proposal for the Flagged Revisions "trial" but I'd definitely support this. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. We don't have enough people participating. DS ( talk) 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It's easy for a vandal to register and become autoconfirmed. How does this proposal think such an event should be handled? It would make a semi-flagged protection useless, but contrary to the current system, it might be harder to discover it is happening because a supposedly trusted individual sighted the revision. Basically, the proposal allows vandals to sight their own revisions unless full flagged protection is implemented. -- Mgm| (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I've always thought of flagging as a form of protection, and that it should be used only as an alternative to, and result in a decrease in, traditional protection. It looks like the unsighting will allow autoconfirmeds to effectively revert war, so we'd need to make sure the protection & reversion policies are both updated, so it's clear this isn't a loophole in 3RR.
I think that full & semi flagged protection should work together, they way their current counterparts do now, but I think protection is better suited to some short-term uses; we shouldn't get rid of semi-protection, maybe just limit the time it can be used, i.e. 1 week max before unprotecting, and flagging if necessary. - Steve Sanbeg ( talk) 22:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if there is still any unanswered questions left by this proposal before this is presented to the Wikipedian community and to be voted on perhaps. Y. Ichiro ( talk) 19:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not up-to-speed on what has clearly been a lengthy debate, but the request might benefit from a summary as to why this is a good idea. The method for fixing the problem is elaborated on, but what is the problem that this proposal is attempting to fix? It is apparently designed to "allow anonymous editors and new users to edit protected articles in a limited fashion", but for what reasons? I have no doubt there are such but the opening reads as if it is a proposal to allow a limited amount of additional vandalism, without any obvious benefits. Ben Mac Dui 10:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There is still a little problem in letting autoconfirmed users reviewing articles, they won't necessarily know what it means, and what it implies, so this will lead to a comparatively high number of bad flaggings, especially in articles with a high level of vandalism. It would also introduce another subtlety in editing for them, while we should on the contrary make editing as easy as possible for inexperienced users. Of course autoreview should be automatically granted to them, which they generally won't notice. Overall, the majority of flaggings will be made by experienced users, who would normally be reviewers, so in term of backlog, giving reviewer rights to all autoconfirmed users won't change much. We could still make an auto promotion with higher requirements, and a rollback-like process for granting. There is also a good number of articles persistently targeted by sockpupetters, some have to be fully protected. A way to handle them would be to deactivate autoreview for autoconfirmed users there, so make an option of it, enabled by default. Thoughts ? Cenarium (Talk) 15:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
If it is not possible to turn off the ability to review in individual cases (that is if any autoconfirmed user has the ability to review), then this isn't flagged revisions any more. It's been watered down too much to be a good test. Reviewer is an ability to be given out with some thought, and to be taken away if misused. It needs at least much thought as giving out rollback, if not more. NOT automatically. Else I'll be arguing strongly that we should be blocking for inappropriate reviews. (Even if they were good faith, if there's any chance at all that the judgement is still skewed) ++ Lar: t/ c 02:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I am taking the liberity to close this poll early because I think we already have an idea what this proposal is missing. I think it's time we should be moving forward and start making changes to it as we see fit. This poll is generating an unexpected amount of drama, I think it is getting to the point where it is counterproductive, and people have lost the sense of direction of where we are going with FR. There are still a lot of specifics that have been left out in the dark that needs to be brought up, and I do not think it is time to dicuss that in a poll. Y. Ichiro ( talk) 19:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hate to do this, but this is Flagged Revisions, just applied to a small subset of articles. FlaggedRevs is a technical bit of software - how it is used is a different question. This appears to have been something not widely understood by voters on both sides. Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
We need to discuss whether we should give autoreview and review, or autoreview only to autoconfirmed users. I think only autoreview should be given to autoconfirmed users, as 'review' will puzzle inexperienced users, lead to bad mistakes, example: an IP makes a bad edit to a page, one minute later, an autoconfirmed user edits constructively the page, and having little understanding of Flaggedrevs, flags the new revision in complete good faith... Since this is intended for would-be semi-protected pages, this is bound to happen a lot, and we would have no way to remove reviewing rights for the user, except if we simulate autoconfirmed status with an auto-promotion, but even so, we would be forced to remove the 'autoreview' rights also for the well-intended user... So this would destroy the good intentions of the proposal. In the same time, most edits will be automatically reviewed, so it shouldn't add much to the backlog if we use a reviewer usergroup and give autoreview to autoconfirmed users. Cenarium (Talk) 18:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
1. We need to protect living people from the havoc that can be wreaked on their lives by inaccurate BLPs. 2. We need to hold together a community that is being torn apart by a drive to implement FRs in a clumsy and ill-defined way that is not sufficiently restricted to prevent 'creep' across the whole encyclopedia 3. Most of the arguments against FRs still apply to Flagged Protection - some would call it 'FR lite' others a more precise and clearly delimited version of FRs. 4. It's a foundation principle of Wikipedia that anyone should be able to edit it. To change a foundation principle must require huge backing from across the community - much more than is available at present. 5. There don't seem to be many people, on either side, that wish to reach a compromise that a REAL consensus could form around, despite Jimbo clearly giving us the opportunity to do this. I thought Flagged Protection might offer the basis for such a compromise, but noone seems keen to shift their position. 6. Technical solutions are not likely to be as effective as solutions that reward good WP behaviour.
I'd really like to support this, and put it forward as a possible compromise option in the increasingly heated FR debate. This would require a lot more willingness to shift from both the FR Fanatics and the FR Oppositionists, without that willingness to shift and given the problems inherent in restricting rights to edit in any way, the best I can do is remain neutral. Riversider2008 ( talk) 14:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible, under this system, to institute a flagged protection that will automatically lapse after x days, like Protection currently does? NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me because it probably says somewhere and I just can't see it. Am I correct in assuming that implementing this proposal would not be intended to preclude or replace stricter uses of the flagged revisions system (e.g. on BLPs)? i.e. If we had a "Flagged Protection" option similar to what is proposed here, we would not be removing the option to have a German-style flagged revision system on BLPs? Correct? Or not? CIreland ( talk) 18:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
When I first was involved with Wiki in 2004 it was a different kettle of fish. Wikiworld was about creating new pages and checking old ones, but it was mainly the feeling of spreading free knowledge that was at the forefront of my mind. Improving the articles was easy and there were many many of them to create. It was a pleasurable if short lived time as I had to give Wiki up to concentrate on life for a while.
When I rejoined mid last year I was put off because I missed the creation of the new, so I spent a few months mooching around Wikiworld and seeing what was there, put it in my browser as my search engine and carried on. After a while though, I started spotting mistakes and wanting to contribute and eventually I got infected again.
In those months I realised that I actually enjoy this challenge more than the old one. Sure it was a good feeling to create something new, but now I have to research much more on every task I attempt, and I have to learn more to be able to input more. I like it and I have grown and changed to accommodate this new Wikiworld. We also have to accept that in the attempt to gain more accurate and publicly trusted information we need to perhaps let Wikiworld change too.
I do not want to stop anybody from having the feelings I had when I first edited a line, re-wrote someone else's badly written page or even created one, and I welcome any change that will make Wiki more accessible to editors both established and new.
We have to accept that there are people out there who take pleasure from deleting a whole page and putting ARSE there instead, that is unacceptable. We have to show each other and the rest of the world that we can achieve harmony and accuracy of content and I believe leading they way in this is through whatever the outcome is of these discussions.
I support these proposed changes because I think it achieves those two goals, more open editing and at the same time more flexibility on control of the ARSE element.
Hope we can get the results of the trial soon and that it is a positive outcome.--
Chaosdruid (
talk) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been discussion about the current auto-confirmed threshold being too short. I wonder if we can raise it to 7 days and 50 edits? or 90 days with 100 edits instead for reviewer status (TOR proxy autoconfirm threshold is 90 days with 100 edits), for the auto-promotion of reviewer status? Y. Ichiro ( talk) 07:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Does liability for libel not significantly increase when content is moderated? IANAL but is it not true that while fewer problematic edits will slip through, those that do could prove far more serious both for Wikipedia and the approver(s)? For example:
In the Prodigy case, Prodigy was sued for defamation based upon the statements made by one of its customers in a Prodigy discussion group (or bulletin board). In determining whether Prodigy was liable for the defaming statements of its customer in this case, a New York state judge was left to determine whether Prodigy was a "distributor" of information, such as a bookstore or library, or whether Prodigy was a "publisher" of information, such as a newspaper. As a mere distributor, Prodigy would not be liable for the statement. In contrast, if Prodigy was considered a publisher (with greater control over the information's content), Prodigy would be liable. In a decision that shocked most on-line service providers, the judge held that, as a result of Prodigy's well-publicized policies of monitoring and censoring its forums, Prodigy was a publisher and was potentially liable for the defaming statement. Although the case was settled by the parties and Prodigy moved for a withdrawal of the judge's decision, the judge refused.
This is a significant change that appears to be a kneejerk reaction to criticism from old media, and thus one that requires more deliberation. Note that the offending edit was not quoted as fact (no sane journalist would use Wikipedia without checking references), rather used to attack Wikipedia despite the content being almost instantly removed. Perhaps further rules could be added to limit the effects, for example autoapproval of pending edits that are not reviewed within a relatively short time (e.g. a day rather than a month ala wp.de).
Anyway, in other news I left my computer off for a week and it didn't get any viruses, though I still wouldn't call this trial a complete success. -- samj in out 13:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
No. By all means contact Godwin if you think that flagged revisions were implemented by the WMF and brought into use on other Wikis without him hearing about it (maybe he was having a nap at the time) but the issue for Prodigy was that it was Prodigy who were, at least ostensibly, monitoring and editing the content. There is already a whole bunch of people monitoring and editing the content of Wikipedia; the important thing (at least, the principle that the WMF wish to rely on) is that those people are not the WMF and do not work for the WMF. That would still be the case with flagged revisions. The "blame" for anything that happens would continue to be with the community, not with the WMF. 87.254.93.202 ( talk) 14:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
An interesting flip here from the previous vote on having trials of flagged revs. On that poll people who opposed flagged revs in at least some form often opposed because they saw a "slippery slope" to full implementation (I was one of those), whereas here a number of people are opposing one possible trial because they assume there will be no further trials and that we'll never have flagged revisions on BLPs (which is the real concern for many if not most).
Of course that is possible, and there are people above who say they would only support flagged revisions. But I would ask those opposing per Scott McDonald's rationale to consider the following:
In general I'm disappointed that both sides of this debate have dug their heels in to such a degree, and that throughout this multi-page debate there has been no shortage of wild accusations and, quite frankly, rank incivility ("you're destroying the Wiki way!" "you're immature and don't care about real people!"). Like anything else on Wikipedia we need to work together, and we should all be open to compromise and multiple approaches. The fact is, none of us have experience with flagged revisions on en.wp, so it's remarkable how sure most of us are about what it will or will not do. Recognizing that fact might make us all more open to different means of testing and using this feature, and it will certainly make it easier to talk to one another. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In this comment Geometery guy asks Lar if the proposal would receive Lar's support if it:
I would like to build on this since, as an initial opposer of this proposal, I would support the proposal if these modifications were to be made. I therefore propose that the proposal be modified to set these as new conditions. Would this be something the supporters of the original proposal are happy with? Would this be something the opposers of the original proposal are happy with? Is it an effective compromise? GDonato ( talk) 16:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if this will make things clearer for people as to why this proposal was written in the first place. Y. Ichiro ( talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I added the full flagged protection feature to the implementation from Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Trial. The result is here: User:Ruslik0/Sandbox2. I think the full flagged protection is a useful idea that should be included. Ruslik ( talk) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Several people have expressed interest in tweaks to this proposal, to make it slightly more restrictive. This post is an analysis of the options for modification to this proposal, for feasibility, (undesirable) side effects, and desirability for those who opposed the original proposal for wider use. I cannot speak for desirability for those who desire wider use as I am myself opposed to such and wish to not misrepresent their opinions. The suggestions follow, in no particular order:
Increase autoconfirmed threshold
Restrict reviewing to a new usergroup above autoconfirmed
Endorse wider use on biographies of living persons (BLPs)
Use autoreview
only for autoconfirmed
users
review
right, otherwise pages that receive unsighted revisions will remain unsighted permanently.autoconfirmed
users autoreview
effectively discards the anti-vandal elements of requiring a group above autoconfirmed—since an autoconfirmed
vandal can get their vandalism sighted through autoreview
—while still requiring a group above autoconfirmed.I'm open to checking out more options, and this is primarily my opinion (though I've aimed to stay relatively objective) and could be wrong. Any thoughts? {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 19:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement on the efficiency of the proposal for certain blps, and so that we should also be able to use classic Flaggedrevs. So I propose a merge like this: we give autoreview to autoconfirmed users (when the latest version is flagged, the new revision is flagged) but not review, and we use an auto-promotion to reviewer rights to be determined, with higher requirements than autoconfirmed. Cases where a non-reviewer autoconfirmed user edits a page with latest version unreviewed should be quite rare, so this won't change the 'spirit' of the proposal much, and if we notice that a good editor is often in this situation, we can give the rights, and we can also tell the user how to request them on the explanation message displayed after editing. Additionally, we create a usergroup 'moderator', able to validate articles, for articles that would be fully protected otherwise. The bridge between classic flaggedrevs and semi-flag-protection is then to have the option to disable autoreview for autoconfirmed users (except reviewers) on a particular page, in the form of a default-checked check box for example. This would have to be requested as this is not available in the current extension. For high-risk blps or other very problematic pages, we can disable autoreview. Cenarium (Talk) 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
# Limit it to mainspace only
$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces = array( NS_MAIN );
# Don't set any FlaggedRevs level for new pages
$wgFlaggedRevsAutoReviewNew = false;
# Pages display the current version by default - i.e. unprotected
$wgFlaggedRevsOverride = false;
# This requires it to be turned on by an admin for each page
$wgFlaggedRevsReviewForDefault = true;
# Flagging types
$wgFlaggedRevTags = array( 'protection' => 2 );
# Number of levels (full=2/semi=1/none=0)
$wgFlaggedRevValues = 2;
# Restrict autoconfirmed to flagging semi-protected
$wgFlagRestrictions = array(
'protection' => array( 'review' => 1 ),
);
# Group permissions for autoconfirmed
$wgGroupPermissions'autoconfirmed']['autoreview' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'autoconfirmed']['movestable' = true;
# Reviewer group
$wgGroupPermissions'reviewer']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'reviewer']['unreviewedpages' = true;
# Giving reviewer rights to rollbackers
$wgGroupPermissions'rollbacker']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'rollbacker']['unreviewedpages' = true;
# Rights for bots
$wgGroupPermissions'bot']['unreviewedpages' = true;
# Group permissions for moderators
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['unreviewedpages' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['validate' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['unwatchedpages' = true; #?
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['rollback' = true; #?
$wgAddGroups'moderator'][] = 'reviewer'; #?
# Group permissions for sysops
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['unreviewedpages' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['validate' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['stablesettings' = true;
$wgAddGroups'sysop'][] = 'reviewer';
$wgRemoveGroups'sysop'][] = 'reviewer';
$wgAddGroups'sysop'][] = 'moderator';
$wgRemoveGroups'sysop'][] = 'moderator';
# Auto promotion to reviewer status, requirements to be determined
$wgFlaggedRevsAutopromote = false; #TBD
# Can users make comments that will show up below flagged revisions?
$wgFlaggedRevsComments = true; #?
This proposal takes away the reasons why people who opposed the trial would support this proposal: It does create new hierarchy (which is bad) and makes it more complicated (also bad). The point of this proposal was that autoconfirmed users can review non-vandalism IP edits, thus having many people to do the job without complicated structures. After all, there can't be anything bad that an IP can add which an autoconfirmed user can't but you propose we allow the autoconfirmed user to add the bad content but deny them to review bad content by another? I do not see why there should be a difference and I for one would oppose such an implementation. I don't see why you have to make a good proposal (allow more editing with less work and no new hierarchies) worse (adding hierarchy and less people to do the job)... So Why 09:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I would strike out '$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['review'] = true;'. This makes vandal reviews pretty easy. Autoreview should be good enough most of the time, and admins can clear out those edits that are not autoreviewed. If the backlog somehow is too large, we can set $wgAutopromote['review'] to something higher than autoconfirmed, without actually messing with autoconfirmed. Aaron Schulz 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to allow those newly confirmed with autoreviewer rights to become "mentored" for, say, 50 edits where their work is flagged and enters a pool so that already experienced reviewers or admins can check their work ?
Alternatively an approach similar to Distributed Proofreaders could be adopted (although a more formal approach) where an instructional quiz asks them to do some basic editing - on DP it is not recorded until they pass and are allowed to take it as many times they like till they get it correct. I can imagine it would take the form of asking which to allow and which not to etc.
I appreciate this would cause extra work but it would mean that at least the fledgling could be helped in the first weeks.-- Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What about WP:GAMErs who do their fifty and then go to hell?-- Cerejota ( talk) 07:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to have a page similar to Oldreviewedpages, for validated revisions ? That is, listing all full flag protected pages with a latest revision that is not validated ? That would be useful to monitor disputes. We'll still have to create a template, something like {{requestvalidation}}, for users to request that an admin (or moderator) validates a revision, similarly to {{ editprotected}}, because the revision has consensus or is a non-controversial change to the latest validated version. Cenarium (Talk) 18:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Idea for better reliability on Wikipedia (and vandal screening):
I posted this a while ago on the village pump (it got a mixed review) ... I'll float it one last time here with some tweaks ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.228.145 ( talk) 22:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested Trial 13: Three month trial of all BLPs + flagged protection? Basically, would FlaggedRevs on BLPs and individually selected articles be a reasonable compromise? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Trials must be limited as voted in the poll, so this is not a valid trial. Cenarium (Talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
See WP:Flagged protection and BLPs for more details on this kind of proposal Fritzpoll ( talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
In order to address BLP concerns in addition to opening up the project, I have concocted a trial of the two systems occurring simultaneously in my userspace at User:Fritzpoll/BLPFlaggedRevs. This bit of spam is neede to get more eyes on it to get a well-rounded proposal before moving it to project space. No polls, please, but edit freely both the main page and the talkpage Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
We now have a number of parallel discussions now ongoing that consider possible implementations of the FlaggedRevs functionality, covering a huge range of configuration options; however, they all have a number of things in common, and I think that these areas should be the focus of our attention. Foremost, every proposal must either include an explanation of, or make an assumption that readers are familiar with, the FlaggedRevs user interface and how the flagging process works.
It is my belief that an important step forward for FlaggedRevs on en.wiki is to create a full but accessible documentation for the aspects of FlaggedRevs that are invariant across all the proposals: how pages are reviewed, how flagging is encouraged, how the workflow of the wiki is affected. An easily-accessible explanation of what the extension will entail and what features it will provide will, I think, go a long way towards resolving some of the innumerable 'trivial' concerns with the entire principle, and leave us free to focus on the important and legitimate issues.
This documentation needs to be independent of any particular configuration of FlaggedRevs, and focus only on the aspects that apply to all users on all wikis. It needs, in effect, to be "site neutral". Partly for this reason, I propose that we write this documentation on http://www.mediawiki.org, in its public-domain Help: namespace. This way, our work will be accessible to any other wiki that wishes to consider FlaggedRevs, and we can ensure a fair and neutral representation of the system. mediawiki.org is a website run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is part of its SUL network: if you have a global account, you already have a login there - you should be logged in automatically. It runs MediaWiki just like en.wiki, and all the same features are available; it has most of the same community standards as en.wiki although its focus is on the documentation of the MediaWiki software. And it's where all our help content is running away to anyway :D. Since it will be a public-domain resource, once written it can be copied or moved in its entirety without any of the licensing issues that bug us constantly on normal wikis, so we can get it back here without any trouble at all, while moving it from here would be much more difficult.
I have begun work on a framework for the documentation on the appropriate page at mediawiki.org. I have added a few notes on the talk page for those who haven't been to mediawiki.org before. If anyone is interested in helping with this little project, your assistance would be very much appreciated. Happy‑ melon 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose to change the proposal in the following ways:
# Limit it to mainspace only
$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces = array( NS_MAIN );
# Don't set any FlaggedRevs level for new pages
$wgFlaggedRevsAutoReviewNew = false;
# Pages display the current version by default - i.e. unprotected
$wgFlaggedRevsOverride = false;
# This requires it to be turned on by an admin for each page
$wgFlaggedRevsReviewForDefault = true;
# Flagging types
$wgFlaggedRevTags = array( 'protection' => 2 );
# Number of levels (full=2/semi=1/none=0)
$wgFlaggedRevValues = 2;
# Restrict autoconfirmed to flagging semi-protected
$wgFlagRestrictions = array(
'protection' => array( 'review' => 1 ),
);
# Group permissions for autoconfirmed
$wgGroupPermissions'autoconfirmed']['autoreview' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'autoconfirmed']['movestable' = true;
# Reviewer group
$wgGroupPermissions'reviewer']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'reviewer']['unreviewedpages' = true;
# Giving reviewer rights to rollbackers ?
$wgGroupPermissions'rollbacker']['review' = true; #?
$wgGroupPermissions'rollbacker']['unreviewedpages' = true; #?
# Rights for bots
$wgGroupPermissions'bot']['unreviewedpages' = true; #?
# Group permissions for moderators
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['unreviewedpages' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['validate' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'moderator']['rollback' = true; #?
# Group permissions for sysops
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['review' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['unreviewedpages' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['validate' = true;
$wgGroupPermissions'sysop']['stablesettings' = true;
$wgAddGroups'sysop'][] = 'reviewer';
$wgRemoveGroups'sysop'][] = 'reviewer';
$wgAddGroups'sysop'][] = 'moderator';
$wgRemoveGroups'sysop'][] = 'moderator';
# Auto promotion to reviewer status, requirements to be determined
$wgFlaggedRevsAutopromote = ; #TBD
# Can users make comments that will show up below flagged revisions?
$wgFlaggedRevsComments = true; #?
Note that technically, the original version can be recovered from this one by setting the autoconfirmed level as auto promotion and removing the moderator rights. Please indicate whether you support or oppose this change, or part of it. Cenarium (Talk) 10:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
autoreview
, it's still acceptable. Some of the elements relating to rollback might be debatable, but I don't particularly mind these. I just hope that flagged-protection proposals can be seen, by those advocating wider use of FlaggedRevs, as independent (rather than exclusive) of the idea of implementing what they advocate—I fail to see any non-political drawbacks to flagged-protection. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
log}} 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the requirements are only raised for BLP concerns and render this semi protection proposal unacceptable, see What happened to review ?, people who want to raise the bar to meet WP:BLP per review should discuss this on Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_BLPs and not here. Mion ( talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deferred revisions is a new proposal to use the abuse filter to defer suspect edits for review without the need to enable 'classic' flagged revisions, but able to work with it. Please express your opinions on the talk page. Cenarium (Talk) 18:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Is a solution found for this:
Is it technical possible to keep Patrol enabled on the Flagged protection articles ? Mion ( talk) 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['review'] = true; is deleted from the proposal, "remove untenable setting" , what is untenable ? Mion ( talk) 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) This comes to the heart of the problem: the proposal in its current state is incomplete: it is (essentially) intended to replace semi-protection when possible, but semi-protection is not only used against vandalism: pov pushing, blpvios, spam, etc, are also reasons for protection. We could multiply the flags - a BLP flag, a POV flag, etc (see
this for the extreme case), and assign to each flag a specific reviewer group, but there ! : welcome bureaucracy and other nasty things the community abhors: it'll never happen. Yes, we could single out the blp case, it's one of our most passionated and polarizing issue, maybe a blp-reviewer group would be more accepted (though I doubt it), but it comes down to trust: they are certain users that we should trust as reviewers, but not as BLP-reviewers. I think not, users who are experienced enough to be granted reviewer rights should be trusted enough to follow the reviewing guidelines, that ... we should determine. This means they have to be more informed of course, this is partly addressed by my proposition to
use edit intros for all blps, and we could also make sure that the latest entry in the stablesettings log is visible to reviewers (as is done currently for semi-protected pages). Flag protection should not be restricted to prevent vandalism (we should not review blpvios, in a blp, or anywhere), but rather somehow like this:
Anything that is either:
should not be reviewed on any page. It is then up to the user's judgment to edit the page, revert, review, etc.
Additionally, if the administrator who flag protected the page indicates one or several reasons for doing so, reviewers should take those in consideration and make especially sure the edits are in compliance with the relevant policies.
In cases autoconfirmed users make problematic edits to a semi flag protected page, we disable non-reviewer autoreview for this page.
In cases there are still problems with reviewing, we use full flag protection for the page.
Reviewer rights can be removed. It would be nice to be able to remove (and reassign) autoconfirmed also.
Now several possible trials:
I'm biased w.r.t. #2 because I feel we shouldn't use flagged revisions preemptively, but instead increase awareness of our blp policy (with the editnotices) and improve patrolling for blps (using patrolled revisions, a form of passive flagged revisions) before attempting some drastic measures.
I would prefer a trial like this (with reviewing guidelines outlined above):
Cenarium ( talk) 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I have made three proposals related to Flaggedrevs. The proposals are a variant of Flag protection (already discussed in #Proposed changes), Patrolled revisions and Deferred revisions. Comments would be appreciated to see if there is support for some of them and what to do next. Cenarium ( talk) 15:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed a version of flagged protection along with patrolled revisions (a passive flag) for consideration here. Cenarium ( talk) 15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a poll on the autopromotion of reviewers at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#Poll on autopromotion, for the trial implementation of flagged protection and patrolled revisions. For information, see general documentation and overview. All users are invited to comment, and to participate in the elaboration of a reviewing guideline as well. Cenarium ( talk) 13:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
"Can edit; a new edit is visible to registered users, but not to readers by default until confirmed by a 'reviewer'". What is a "reader by default"? Is it the same as a non-registered user? Questioningly, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Surely "intermediate"? FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)