On 22/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/22/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
When I say OTRS-like it's deliberate - this
isn't going to be bolted
on to the existing system for handling @wikimedia.org emails, but
rather a seperate handling system which uses the same (or similar)
software and concepts. Basically, just something that lets us see
what's open, what's closed, what's being handled.
What's the need, exactly? Wikipedia is littered with "work to be done"
requests. Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Opentask, fo
example. None of those tasks are really tracked, monitored,
prioritised - people just do them when they get to them. Is that not
the appropriate strategy for this as well?
Hmm. I expect three resolutions: "vandalism removed", "page actually
labelled as crap", or "real problem being dealt with";
"resolving" one
of these should be trivially easy except in case 3. We're not actually
guaranteeing to *do* the remedial work, etc - just to ensure that the
page is flagged that it needs it. In many ways we're feeding
{{opentask}} rather than running alongside it...
We don't really need a tracking or prioritising system, but some way
of seeing if there is a backlog and how bad that backlog is would be a
very useful way of deciding if this system works or not.
An additional
benefit of the "single flagging account" is that we can
trivially go back and see how the system is being used, just by
looking at the contributions of that single "user".
Logging everything on one central page would also have that advantage.
True. Again, this is as much for judging uptake as it is for ease of operation.
I do honestly
feel that preventing blocks from governing this gives us
a net benefit - sure, we'll get some abuse, but we'll also get the
opportunity for a lot of users who would otherwise be unable to
participate to leave comments. (Think of AOL users, or those behind
school rangeblocks, etc etc)
Maybe - you could be right. Anyway, this is a bit of a side issue. We
can certainly implement this a bit further down the track, can't we?
Yeah, most likely. I just *really* don't want to implement something
like this and then discover that it's giving massively unhelpful and
disconcerting you-have-been-blocked, etc, messages to users. This
would - to my mind - negate the entire "outreach" aspect of it.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk