Seriously, though, I'm still looking for a response on my request for details when you said "analysis has been done, results will be published" regarding the initial disabling of anon page creation. Who did the analysis? Or did you answer in a different thread that I haven't been reading? I know I'm being a hardass about this, but so far this has been the only lead I'm aware of indicating that any such analysis might actually be taking place.

On 8/28/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Should be noting that are avtive admin to article ratio is geting worse which means things may not go back to the way they were before.

Jimmy Wales wrote: My gnawing, niggling concerns about this situation were just about completely allayed there, thanks. :)

On 8/27/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist(a)googlemail.com> wrote: You basically missed the fact that Bill Thompson is fond of talking out of his ass. Mark's description of what German is going to be testing is not accurate. Anonymous users will still be permitted to make all the edits they want. The system that German is going to be testing will simply limit the impact that anonymous EDITORS have on anonymous READERS by changing which version of an article is displayed by default.

Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism.

At 13:45 -0400 27/8/06, Gregory Maxwell wrote: Web of trust is the basis of PGP, surely? http://www.rubin.ch/pgp/weboftrust.en.html http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/F.AbdulRahman/docs/pgptrust.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust Good enough then?

At 10:01 +0930 28/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: "Advogato performs certification to three different levels: Apprentice, Journeyer, and Master." So, this system is classfull rather than classless.

On 8/27/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote: Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism. There may be more recent revisions, but those will not be displayed by default; readers will have to specifically request to see them. A consequence of this is that edits made by anonymous readers will not be immediately displayed as the "primary" revision of an article. This is being misrepresented by some as imposing an approval requirement on such edits before they become visible, but that's not what it is; such edits are immediately visible as they are now, just not as the primary version which is displayed by default to anonymous readers. I, personally, see this as a great benefit to the vast bulk of our customers: the chances that Joe Q. Public will go to an article he found by a Google search and be confronted by unexpected penis go WAY down with this approach.

On 8/27/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote: Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as being free of vandalism. There may be more recent revisions, but those will not be displayed by default; readers will have to specifically request to see them. A consequence of this is that edits made by anonymous readers will not be immediately displayed as the "primary" revision of an article. This is being misrepresented by some as imposing an approval requirement on such edits before they become visible, but that's not what it is; such edits are immediately visible as they are now, just not as the primary version which is displayed by default to anonymous readers. I, personally, see this as a great benefit to the vast bulk of our customers: the chances that Joe Q. Public will go to an article he found by a Google search and be confronted by unexpected penis go WAY down with this approach. Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Joe Anderson wrote: The journalist is typical of bad journalists. Running with only the slimmest of understanding, he pukes out his biases about how the world works with little concern for underlying facts. Fortunately for us all, there are also good journalists. --Jimbo