FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Chad
All,

I had this idea cross my mind earlier today, but I got so tied up
in meetings that I couldn't sit down and write out a proper e-mail
until this evening. I was curious as to whether we think FlaggedRevs
might be of use to Mediawiki.org, and if so, how exactly would
we use it?

The idea crossed my mind after the past several days noticing
quite a bit of information on Mediawiki.org is either poorly worded,
outdated or just plain wrong. Now, MW.org doesn't suffer from most
of the issues that are seen on other projects: we're small, we don't
really have anything to edit war over, and we don't seem to get (as
much :) spam and vandalism. I was curious as to whether we could
use FlaggedRevs as a quality control over our documentation.

A lot of the docs have been written by people other than developers,
and a lot of the docs have never been read by a developer. That being
said, using FlaggedRevs we might be able to deliver more solid docs
on MW.org by flagging docs at like two levels. One could be like a basic
"has been looked over for glaring errors and basic readability" and
a second could be "has been thoroughly reviewed and is considered
the doc on the given subject."

Hopefully we can improve the overall quality of the docs on MW.org.
I'm certainly open to other ideas too.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Steve Bennett-8
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Chad<[hidden email]> wrote:
> A lot of the docs have been written by people other than developers,

Ever met a developer who likes writing doc? :)

> and a lot of the docs have never been read by a developer. That being
> said, using FlaggedRevs we might be able to deliver more solid docs
> on MW.org by flagging docs at like two levels. One could be like a basic
> "has been looked over for glaring errors and basic readability" and
> a second could be "has been thoroughly reviewed and is considered
> the doc on the given subject."

Perhaps we could start by getting developers to thoroughly review documentation?

You're proposing a technical solution to a people problem. The problem
is not that the site can't display the fact that a developer vouches
for the quality of documentation. The problem is that there are no
processes for getting developers to review documentation and vouch for
it.

Steve

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Alex Zaddach
Steve Bennett wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Chad<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> A lot of the docs have been written by people other than developers,
>
> Ever met a developer who likes writing doc? :)
>
>> and a lot of the docs have never been read by a developer. That being
>> said, using FlaggedRevs we might be able to deliver more solid docs
>> on MW.org by flagging docs at like two levels. One could be like a basic
>> "has been looked over for glaring errors and basic readability" and
>> a second could be "has been thoroughly reviewed and is considered
>> the doc on the given subject."
>
> Perhaps we could start by getting developers to thoroughly review documentation?
>
> You're proposing a technical solution to a people problem. The problem
> is not that the site can't display the fact that a developer vouches
> for the quality of documentation. The problem is that there are no
> processes for getting developers to review documentation and vouch for
> it.
>

That's true, but even if there is such a process, it would be helpful to
communicate to users whether or not the revision that they're looking at
has been reviewed.

I would support adding FlaggedRevs for the Manual: namespace.

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

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Benjamin Lees
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Chad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> All,
>
> I had this idea cross my mind earlier today, but I got so tied up
> in meetings that I couldn't sit down and write out a proper e-mail
> until this evening. I was curious as to whether we think FlaggedRevs
> might be of use to Mediawiki.org, and if so, how exactly would
> we use it?
>
> The idea crossed my mind after the past several days noticing
> quite a bit of information on Mediawiki.org is either poorly worded,
> outdated or just plain wrong. Now, MW.org doesn't suffer from most
> of the issues that are seen on other projects: we're small, we don't
> really have anything to edit war over, and we don't seem to get (as
> much :) spam and vandalism. I was curious as to whether we could
> use FlaggedRevs as a quality control over our documentation.
>
> A lot of the docs have been written by people other than developers,
> and a lot of the docs have never been read by a developer. That being
> said, using FlaggedRevs we might be able to deliver more solid docs
> on MW.org by flagging docs at like two levels. One could be like a basic
> "has been looked over for glaring errors and basic readability" and
> a second could be "has been thoroughly reviewed and is considered
> the doc on the given subject."
>
> Hopefully we can improve the overall quality of the docs on MW.org.
> I'm certainly open to other ideas too.
>
> When I saw the topic title, I thought of FlaggedRevs at the more basic
level of reviewing edits.  I try to go through the recent changes and review
every edit that looks remotely suspicious or interesting, but I'm sure I
miss plenty.  When I finally catch up on my backlog I often see destructive
edits from several days previous that have not been reverted.  This means
that other people aren't catching everything, and since I know I won't catch
everything, this means that there's stuff going uncaught—and when that stuff
includes changing a "true" to a "false," I get worried.  The AbuseFilter
could probably help in preventing such things, but I'd still like to have
every edit reviewed.  Given our high eyes–edits ratio, I think this is
possible.
With that aside, I like what you're proposing.

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Chad<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > A lot of the docs have been written by people other than developers,
>
> Ever met a developer who likes writing doc? :)
>
> > and a lot of the docs have never been read by a developer. That being
> > said, using FlaggedRevs we might be able to deliver more solid docs
> > on MW.org by flagging docs at like two levels. One could be like a basic
> > "has been looked over for glaring errors and basic readability" and
> > a second could be "has been thoroughly reviewed and is considered
> > the doc on the given subject."
>
> Perhaps we could start by getting developers to thoroughly review
> documentation?
>
> You're proposing a technical solution to a people problem. The problem
> is not that the site can't display the fact that a developer vouches
> for the quality of documentation. The problem is that there are no
> processes for getting developers to review documentation and vouch for
> it.
>
> Steve

There's a class of people in between the people who write the code and the
people who use it.  We like documenting things and helping people with their
problems, and even though we don't always know how something works, we
(hopefully) have the savvy to either check the source or ask somebody who
does know. (We have lots of wonderful and helpful devs, of course; I'm just
saying that non-developers can still help, especially since we often have
more spare focus and time.)
Having developers review everything would be great, but if they don't have
the time for all of it, we can leverage our base of knowledgeable MediaWiki
hangers-on for a systematic review of the site docs.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Chad
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Steve Bennett<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Chad<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> A lot of the docs have been written by people other than developers,
>
> Ever met a developer who likes writing doc? :)
>

Hehe, I've worked in IT for several years now. Nobody likes to :)

>> and a lot of the docs have never been read by a developer. That being
>> said, using FlaggedRevs we might be able to deliver more solid docs
>> on MW.org by flagging docs at like two levels. One could be like a basic
>> "has been looked over for glaring errors and basic readability" and
>> a second could be "has been thoroughly reviewed and is considered
>> the doc on the given subject."
>
> Perhaps we could start by getting developers to thoroughly review documentation?
>
> You're proposing a technical solution to a people problem. The problem
> is not that the site can't display the fact that a developer vouches
> for the quality of documentation. The problem is that there are no
> processes for getting developers to review documentation and vouch for
> it.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

I try to ensure my documentation is thorough as I write it. That being said,
there's still plenty out there that needs review. I'm just suggesting
FlaggedRevs
as a mechanism to aid in that.

To further expand on my original statements, I'm not suggesting the developers
are the only ones with in-depth knowledge of how Mediawiki works. There are
certainly other members of the community we can trust to handle this task as
well. I'm looking at this primarily as tools to aid in fixing a
problem. Of course
without work on part of document writers/reviewers, this won't go anywhere.

-Chad

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

b a-7
Chad wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Steve Bennett<[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Chad<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>> A lot of the docs have been written by people other than developers,
>>>      
>> Ever met a developer who likes writing doc? :)
>>
>>    
>
> Hehe, I've worked in IT for several years now. Nobody likes to :)
>
>  
Guess what , I'm in IT for several years now also , and I like writing
docs , no matter if it's a documenting my own code or
documenting the functionality that I'm implementing , keeping an agenda
of what I did and what I still have to do.
It's called getting organized. If I don't do this it's going to get out
of control sooner or later.
I like to write docs because I am sure that after 6 months from now if I
look at my stuff it would make no difference if it was foreign code
or my own code.
So maybe your question should be "Ever met a very good developer who
likes writing doc?"
The answer I suspect is in the affirmative.

>>> and a lot of the docs have never been read by a developer. That being
>>> said, using FlaggedRevs we might be able to deliver more solid docs
>>> on MW.org by flagging docs at like two levels. One could be like a basic
>>> "has been looked over for glaring errors and basic readability" and
>>> a second could be "has been thoroughly reviewed and is considered
>>> the doc on the given subject."
>>>      
>> Perhaps we could start by getting developers to thoroughly review documentation?
>>
>> You're proposing a technical solution to a people problem. The problem
>> is not that the site can't display the fact that a developer vouches
>> for the quality of documentation. The problem is that there are no
>> processes for getting developers to review documentation and vouch for
>> it.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>    
>
> I try to ensure my documentation is thorough as I write it. That being said,
> there's still plenty out there that needs review. I'm just suggesting
> FlaggedRevs
> as a mechanism to aid in that.
>
> To further expand on my original statements, I'm not suggesting the developers
> are the only ones with in-depth knowledge of how Mediawiki works. There are
> certainly other members of the community we can trust to handle this task as
> well. I'm looking at this primarily as tools to aid in fixing a
> problem. Of course
> without work on part of document writers/reviewers, this won't go anywhere.
>
> -Chad
>
> -Chad
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>  


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

b a-7
In reply to this post by Chad
So you want to use flagged revs to correct some other content ?
You can look on this blog , the same idea is described on writing a
probabilistic grammar checker based on flagged revisions (the ones
flagged for some incorrect grammatical content)
http://www.orchycore.com/index.php?/archives/96-Proposal-for-a-probabilistic-grammar-checker-using-Wikipedias-revision-history..html

Chad wrote:

> All,
>
> I had this idea cross my mind earlier today, but I got so tied up
> in meetings that I couldn't sit down and write out a proper e-mail
> until this evening. I was curious as to whether we think FlaggedRevs
> might be of use to Mediawiki.org, and if so, how exactly would
> we use it?
>
> The idea crossed my mind after the past several days noticing
> quite a bit of information on Mediawiki.org is either poorly worded,
> outdated or just plain wrong. Now, MW.org doesn't suffer from most
> of the issues that are seen on other projects: we're small, we don't
> really have anything to edit war over, and we don't seem to get (as
> much :) spam and vandalism. I was curious as to whether we could
> use FlaggedRevs as a quality control over our documentation.
>
> A lot of the docs have been written by people other than developers,
> and a lot of the docs have never been read by a developer. That being
> said, using FlaggedRevs we might be able to deliver more solid docs
> on MW.org by flagging docs at like two levels. One could be like a basic
> "has been looked over for glaring errors and basic readability" and
> a second could be "has been thoroughly reviewed and is considered
> the doc on the given subject."
>
> Hopefully we can improve the overall quality of the docs on MW.org.
> I'm certainly open to other ideas too.
>
> -Chad
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>  


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Chad
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 1:44 AM, randomcoder1<[hidden email]> wrote:

> So you want to use flagged revs to correct some other content ?
> You can look on this blog , the same idea is described on writing a
> probabilistic grammar checker based on flagged revisions (the ones
> flagged for some incorrect grammatical content)
> http://www.orchycore.com/index.php?/archives/96-Proposal-for-a-probabilistic-grammar-checker-using-Wikipedias-revision-history..html
>
> Chad wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I had this idea cross my mind earlier today, but I got so tied up
>> in meetings that I couldn't sit down and write out a proper e-mail
>> until this evening. I was curious as to whether we think FlaggedRevs
>> might be of use to Mediawiki.org, and if so, how exactly would
>> we use it?
>>
>> The idea crossed my mind after the past several days noticing
>> quite a bit of information on Mediawiki.org is either poorly worded,
>> outdated or just plain wrong. Now, MW.org doesn't suffer from most
>> of the issues that are seen on other projects: we're small, we don't
>> really have anything to edit war over, and we don't seem to get (as
>> much :) spam and vandalism. I was curious as to whether we could
>> use FlaggedRevs as a quality control over our documentation.
>>
>> A lot of the docs have been written by people other than developers,
>> and a lot of the docs have never been read by a developer. That being
>> said, using FlaggedRevs we might be able to deliver more solid docs
>> on MW.org by flagging docs at like two levels. One could be like a basic
>> "has been looked over for glaring errors and basic readability" and
>> a second could be "has been thoroughly reviewed and is considered
>> the doc on the given subject."
>>
>> Hopefully we can improve the overall quality of the docs on MW.org.
>> I'm certainly open to other ideas too.
>>
>> -Chad
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

I'm not really sure how this relates to what we're discussing.
The idea in that post is to use Wikipedia's edit history as a
basis to build grammar checking rules around.

I'm not suggesting that this system will fix issues in our
documentation, but rather that it will assure the reader as
to the level of review has gone into the docs they are
currently reading.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Andrew Garrett-4
In reply to this post by b a-7

On 04/07/2009, at 5:21 AM, randomcoder1 wrote:

> Guess what , I'm in IT for several years now also , and I like writing
> docs , no matter if it's a documenting my own code or
> documenting the functionality that I'm implementing , keeping an  
> agenda
> of what I did and what I still have to do.
> It's called getting organized. If I don't do this it's going to get  
> out
> of control sooner or later.
> I like to write docs because I am sure that after 6 months from now  
> if I
> look at my stuff it would make no difference if it was foreign code
> or my own code.
> So maybe your question should be "Ever met a very good developer who
> likes writing doc?"
> The answer I suspect is in the affirmative.

Good for you, but that's not really what we're talking about.

>>>> and a lot of the docs have never been read by a developer. That  
>>>> being
>>>> said, using FlaggedRevs we might be able to deliver more solid docs
>>>> on MW.org by flagging docs at like two levels. One could be like  
>>>> a basic
>>>> "has been looked over for glaring errors and basic readability" and
>>>> a second could be "has been thoroughly reviewed and is considered
>>>> the doc on the given subject."
>>>>
>>> Perhaps we could start by getting developers to thoroughly review  
>>> documentation?

With no way of planning that review, nor of co-ordinating with other  
developers to make sure everything's been at least somewhat looked at,  
there's no point in doing so.

>>>
>>> You're proposing a technical solution to a people problem. The  
>>> problem
>>> is not that the site can't display the fact that a developer vouches
>>> for the quality of documentation. The problem is that there are no
>>> processes for getting developers to review documentation and vouch  
>>> for
>>> it.
>>
>> To further expand on my original statements, I'm not suggesting the  
>> developers
>> are the only ones with in-depth knowledge of how Mediawiki works.  
>> There are
>> certainly other members of the community we can trust to handle  
>> this task as
>> well. I'm looking at this primarily as tools to aid in fixing a
>> problem. Of course
>> without work on part of document writers/reviewers, this won't go  
>> anywhere.

Giving some indication of what's been checked and is authoritative and  
what isn't is generally a good idea. I don't document much on  
MediaWiki.org, but I sure don't mind checking over existing  
documentation.

--
Andrew Garrett
Contract Developer, Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
http://werdn.us




_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Steve Sanbeg
In reply to this post by Chad
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:07:01 -0400, Chad wrote:

> All,
>
> I had this idea cross my mind earlier today, but I got so tied up
> in meetings that I couldn't sit down and write out a proper e-mail
> until this evening. I was curious as to whether we think FlaggedRevs
> might be of use to Mediawiki.org, and if so, how exactly would
> we use it?
>

One issue on Mediawiki.org is that the help namespace is in the public
domain, intended to be mirrored for local use.  But if someone copies it
at the wrong time, they could end up pulling in all sorts of nonsense onto
their local wiki; someone fixing it after the fact won't help them as much.

So there really should be some way to copy the reviewed version of that
space, even if that's not the version that's shown by default, just to be
assured that you'll get good content, since in the help namespace that's
much more important that having things perfectly up to date.



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Chad
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Steve Sanbeg<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:07:01 -0400, Chad wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I had this idea cross my mind earlier today, but I got so tied up
>> in meetings that I couldn't sit down and write out a proper e-mail
>> until this evening. I was curious as to whether we think FlaggedRevs
>> might be of use to Mediawiki.org, and if so, how exactly would
>> we use it?
>>
>
> One issue on Mediawiki.org is that the help namespace is in the public
> domain, intended to be mirrored for local use.  But if someone copies it
> at the wrong time, they could end up pulling in all sorts of nonsense onto
> their local wiki; someone fixing it after the fact won't help them as much.
>
> So there really should be some way to copy the reviewed version of that
> space, even if that's not the version that's shown by default, just to be
> assured that you'll get good content, since in the help namespace that's
> much more important that having things perfectly up to date.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

Exactly, which is my main point I'm trying to make here. We've got
a situation right now where we've got documentation that we say
is _the_ source for info about MediaWiki, and yet we cannot vouch
for it.

I don't think our major issue is vandalism or people purposefully inserting
false information, but more so users who don't really know exactly
what they're changing, they just know what worked for them. I've got
several docs I've looked at in the past several days that suffer from this:
clueless people trying to be helpful.

Not that we should discourage helpful people, but helpful people don't
always know what they're talking about; at least not well enough to
allow them to set the documented standard :)

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Steve Sanbeg

>
> Exactly, which is my main point I'm trying to make here. We've got
> a situation right now where we've got documentation that we say
> is _the_ source for info about MediaWiki, and yet we cannot vouch
> for it.
>
> I don't think our major issue is vandalism or people purposefully inserting
> false information, but more so users who don't really know exactly
> what they're changing, they just know what worked for them. I've got
> several docs I've looked at in the past several days that suffer from this:
> clueless people trying to be helpful.
>
> Not that we should discourage helpful people, but helpful people don't
> always know what they're talking about; at least not well enough to
> allow them to set the documented standard :)
>

Yes, but the help namespace is a much simpler, less controversial place to
start than other parts of the wiki.

This issue was brought up there years ago, long before there was any
technical means to address it.

The idea is these pages could be mirrored to a local site, but the problem
is that mirrored set could easily contain vandalized, wrong, or nonsense
pages that would need to be sorted out, which pretty much rules out any
kind of automated mirroring, which was part of the point of setting it up
that way. Flagged revisions could simply fix that.

In most pages, unless the flagged revision was shown by default, it
wouldn't be too useful.  Here, as long as you can access the flagged
revision easily, i.e. via the API, it would solve a real problem without
discouraging editors by preventing their work from being shown on the site.

And, really, help pages don't need to change that often, so a brief lag
wouldn't be a problem.  If fact, it could even be useful, i.e. to document
new features as they are implemented, but flag which version of the page
applies to the latest quarterly release.

Although it's good if the developer can document every detail, it may not
be practical for them to spend a lot of time polishing the document, if
they can at least get their point across quickly.  From what I've seen,
misspellings and bad grammar tend to cause a bunch of IP edits, but these
tend to sort themselves out.  The problem is when the documentation is
unclear, people may clarify things that they don't understand.



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Chad
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Steve Sanbeg<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>>
>> Exactly, which is my main point I'm trying to make here. We've got
>> a situation right now where we've got documentation that we say
>> is _the_ source for info about MediaWiki, and yet we cannot vouch
>> for it.
>>
>> I don't think our major issue is vandalism or people purposefully inserting
>> false information, but more so users who don't really know exactly
>> what they're changing, they just know what worked for them. I've got
>> several docs I've looked at in the past several days that suffer from this:
>> clueless people trying to be helpful.
>>
>> Not that we should discourage helpful people, but helpful people don't
>> always know what they're talking about; at least not well enough to
>> allow them to set the documented standard :)
>>
>
> Yes, but the help namespace is a much simpler, less controversial place to
> start than other parts of the wiki.
>
> This issue was brought up there years ago, long before there was any
> technical means to address it.
>
> The idea is these pages could be mirrored to a local site, but the problem
> is that mirrored set could easily contain vandalized, wrong, or nonsense
> pages that would need to be sorted out, which pretty much rules out any
> kind of automated mirroring, which was part of the point of setting it up
> that way. Flagged revisions could simply fix that.
>
> In most pages, unless the flagged revision was shown by default, it
> wouldn't be too useful.  Here, as long as you can access the flagged
> revision easily, i.e. via the API, it would solve a real problem without
> discouraging editors by preventing their work from being shown on the site.
>
> And, really, help pages don't need to change that often, so a brief lag
> wouldn't be a problem.  If fact, it could even be useful, i.e. to document
> new features as they are implemented, but flag which version of the page
> applies to the latest quarterly release.
>
> Although it's good if the developer can document every detail, it may not
> be practical for them to spend a lot of time polishing the document, if
> they can at least get their point across quickly.  From what I've seen,
> misspellings and bad grammar tend to cause a bunch of IP edits, but these
> tend to sort themselves out.  The problem is when the documentation is
> unclear, people may clarify things that they don't understand.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

As a followup to all of this discussion: is there really any reason
we can't go ahead and give this a try?

I think Help and/or Manual are really the only namespaces that
need it, as they are the documentation namespaces. Most other
stuff tends to be just general notes, etc which don't really need
review.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlaggedRevs for Mediawiki.org?

Brion Vibber-3
On 7/13/09 11:34 AM, Chad wrote:
> As a followup to all of this discussion: is there really any reason
> we can't go ahead and give this a try?
>
> I think Help and/or Manual are really the only namespaces that
> need it, as they are the documentation namespaces. Most other
> stuff tends to be just general notes, etc which don't really need
> review.

For those not in on the fun in IRC right now, we're trying this out
right now. :)

The group permission config may be under flux for a bit...

-- brion

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l