Fennec Foxen wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:17:12 +0200, Erik Zachte <e.p.zachte(a)chello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>Only trusted mentors should have access to this function to avoid trolls
>>approving their own edits.
>>
>>
>"Trusted mentor"?
>If you're proposing a new permissions bit, how will we go about
>selecting people to fill the role? What would you say to the
>(numerous) objections about there being a new role, the confusing
>and/or evil heirerarchy, and stuff like that?
>
>Or would you rather attach this to the Administrator role? What would
>the risks of that be, with... <ahemahem> certain administrators whose
>neutrality have been questioned of late?
>
Well, naturally that will lead to people patrolling the un-trusted
mentors to make sure that the areas they're responsible for covering are
being handled "properly". Dr. Seuss wrote an entertaining bit about the
fictional residents of Hawtch-Hawtch, who assign someone to watch a bee
work. When the bee's work doesn't improve, they have someone watch the
bee-watcher, and then someone watches the bee-watcher-watcher, and so
forth. Given the predilection so many of us have for looking over other
people's shoulders to check their work, it seems that we're headed down
that path.
So, a word to the wise for the developers - don't delude yourselves that
coding this kind of feature will ever satisfy people. They'll just want
you to duplicate the work again later, one step higher in the food chain.
Mentoring is _very_ different from monitoring.
--Michael Snow
Hi all,
Here is the program of the meeting in Paris, also available at
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Rencontre_Paris_juillet_2004
11 am : Press conference with a few journalistes (4 are already confirmed),
with Jimmy Wales, Angela, Anthere, Yann and may be a few more Wikipedians.
12 am : Aperitif and lunch
2:30 pm : Speech by Jean-Baptiste Soufron, on law related questions with
Wikipedia in France, and exchange between particpants on the subject.
3:30 pm : Presentation of the Wikimedia Foundation by Anthere
4 pm : Presentation of the French chapter bylaws and the planning of
organisation set-up by Yann, and exchange between particpants on the subject,
and then vote for the piloting committe.
5 pm : Vote counting and creation of the piloting committe
6 pm : Speech by Jimmy Wales to close the meeting
There will be audio streaming (and *maybe* video). Nevertheless video will be
available after via bittorrent.
All Wikipedians are welcome, but please book yourselves here before:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Rencontre_Paris_juillet_2004/Inscrip…
Best wishes,
Yann Forget
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
Fennec wrote:
"If you're proposing a new permissions bit, how will we go about selecting
people to fill the role? What would you say to the (numerous) objections
about there being a new role, the confusing and/or evil heirerarchy, and
stuff like that?"
The only reason to restrict access is to avoid trolls emptying the queue.
Everyone can still recheck edits through RC as much as they want. It is
simply a scheme to make sure alle anon edits are checked at least once with
minimal effort. So maybe every user whith 25+ edits and two weeks
registration would qualify.
Erik Zachte
Mav wrote:
"I simply get bored reviewing edits since the great majority of them (by
volume) are good."
It would be less of a burden if each edit was checked only once by a trusted
mentor. Now efforts are duplicated since noone knows what has been checked
already. Imagine all anonymous edits were put on a queue and people could
ask 'show me the oldest x unchecked edits and remove them from the queue'.
Only trusted mentors should have access to this function to avoid trolls
approving their own edits.
Erik Zachte
You people just lie all the time. This website is an amazing experiment in groupthink, juvenile insults, and a refusal to acknowledge even the most basic processes of judicial review. Not only was I banned; but, you people are so wrapped up in your deceit, you can't even acknowledge the ban! Lol -- its fascinating how messed up this site is becoming. When is the cabal going to grow up; all that power-tripping is gonna take its toll on you.
I have summarized all proposed changes on
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumbnails
Marco Krohn wrote:
>it might be a solution to modify the code, such that
>
> [[image:bla.jpg|thumb|200px ...]]
>
>gives the old result and
>
> [[image:bla.jpg|thumb|~200px ...]]
>
>means that you want something which is roughly ~200 px
>
So funny, I thought of the exact same syntax befor I reached your mail
in the thread. Must really be intuitive! :-)
Magnus
Partially cross posted to WikiEN-l since this is more of a global issue:
--- Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote on WikiEN-l:
>...
> However, I just noticed today that I've managed to make something like
> 70 edits from a single IP address, & no one's seemed to notice. Not that
> I care, but one has to wonder how many more anonymous contributors are
> quietly working away on a regular basis, adding positively to Wikipedia
> without anyone noticing.
Lots (especially small copyedits and adding interlanguage links). But most of
our vandalism and other newbie behavior also comes from IP addresses, meaning
people on RC patrol have to check *each* one (lots of duplicated effort). A
unified log-in system will cut down on the proportion of good anon edits vs bad
simply by displaying user name's of people who are adding interlanguage links.
But what we really need is a way to share the workload by excluding or graying
out and reducing the font size of edits in a special RC once they have been
viewed more than x times (3 perhaps) by a certain group of users (a preference
choice between admins or non-newbie logged-in users would be nice, for
example). To be maximally useful, this would have to be applied to the newbie
RC that Brion gave a link to and the anon RC as well.
In the long term though, we need a web of trust system where each logged-in
user can select the people they trust and even the people whose trust opinions
they trust - thus trusting by proxy. See
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-February/014300.html
Somebody created a page in the Wikipedia namespace on en.wiki about this, but I
can't find it. :(
But baby steps first since I understand the coding and the computing power
needs of such a web of trust would be significant. An enhanced newbie/anon RC,
as described above, should work real well in the meantime. As it is, I rarely
look at RC anymore since there are way too many edits (20 a minute is not
uncommon). I simply get bored reviewing edits since the great majority of them
(by volume) are good. But since the volume of edits is so great, even a small
percentage of bad edits will result in a lot of damage in an absolute sense. So
we need to work on ways to share the workload and reduce duplicated effort -
otherwise RC burnout will become more common.
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
After discussion with some people (especially Tannin) on the
en.wikipedia, I propose a few changes (more like additions) to the
thumbnail function.
Here's the "main proposal":
[[image:bla.jpg|thumb|some text]] generates a normal thumbnail
[[image:bla.jpg|thumb=bla_small.jpg|some text]] uses "bla_small.jpg"
as the thumbnail
This associates the manually created thumbnail with the larger image in
a machine-readable fashion. It should only be used if the manual
thumbnail is of significant better quality than the automatic one, or if
the manual thumbnail shows an alternate view (e.g., only a part) of the
larger image.
Additionally, the automatic thumbnail generation should be improved:
* Add a little sharpening, at least to photos (.jpg/.jpeg).
* Apparently, automatically generated thumbnails look nicer when they
are recaled by an exact even number. For example, for a 640x480 image, a
thumbnail of 200px is requested, generate one with a width of 213px
instead, as this is a factor of 33.3%, or 1/3. I propose to use a
variation of up to 10% from the requested width.
If there is no special reason *not* to do this, implementation can start
soon. At least the "main proposal" should be easy enough to code.
Magnus