Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 193:
''Note: I have posted a question on Jimbo's talk page related to whether another trial is forthcoming. Please do not all flock to his page; it is merely a technical question and discussion can remain here.'' [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 04:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:Two quick things: 1. I emailed Jimbo yesterday with a link here, so hopefully he has some idea of what's up. 2. You win the prize for best RFC section title. :) <
Line 251:
:This is a meta-comment: Sven, your list of questions makes it sound like you think this is some completely new, radically different system. This is still the English Wikipedia. We handle just about everything in the same basic ways. Pending changes is handled almost exactly like its nearest similar process, which is semi-protection: The community writes the rules, the admins push any complicated buttons, problems are reported and resolved in the usual places and in the usual ways. Pending Changes is business as usual, not some wildly different beast. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
::I would echo everything WhatamIdoing said, but I thought I would answer Sven's eighth question: the role of the WMF is the same as any other feature that's been built for the community. You all are the ones who will being using any potential or current tool on the project, so it's not up to us to decide whether it's useful and appropriate or not. (I think most Wikipedians know that, but I thought I'd go and just say it, since you asked.) <
===Where should PC be applied?===
To keep discussion organized, perhaps we should start by asking where PC should be applied. My understanding is, that if/until a new version is released, PC should be used sparingly (only for BLPs) and not just in any situation. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 22:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 265:
::We got upgraded in some small way and its faster and some small points addressed, I don't see a new version on the horizon but as with all the other tools and interfaces, a constant re assessment and upgrades and improvements as and when possible. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The latest update was [http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/11/pending-changesflagged-revisions-update/ in November]. This was laid out in the short term [[:mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap|roadmap]]. Since that November update, it's been basically in maintenance mode, as you can see if you browse the monthly engineering updates. If the community decides it wants Pending Changes in the long run, there is some significant work that needs to be done, including forking the codebase entirely away from Flagged Revisions as it is implemented on Polish and German Wikipedia. There are also significant new improvements that could be made, as described under [[:mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap#Future Releases|future releases]] in the roadmap. But the short answer is: there isn't another upgrade currently in the works. Promising developer time on Pending Changes means taking time away from other current or potential projects, so we have to have some signal from the community about whether it wants Pending Changes permanently or not. If that's the case, then we're committed to working on it just like any other major feature in use. If the community either says, "No, turn it off." or is unable to come to a consensus, then we can't commit more resources of course. <
:Steven, please understand that this is not at all a criticism, but just something that I want to point out. We have a kind of Catch-22 here: there are some of us in the community who would like to keep PC if it is improved, but who would rather get rid of it if it stays as is. I remember Jimbo giving the clear impression that the November update was going to include all of the more ambitious improvements, but obviously it did not turn out that way. I think it's going to be a ''very'' hard sell to the community, to agree to continuing PC on the expectation that further fixes will come later. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::The november update did improve the interface and imo speed up the tool but this isn't a sales program its a tool to help us protect articles, its working now, this is it, there will be I imagine some improvements as is normal through the normal practices and usual upgrades. Either you support its continued usage and development or you don't. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 21:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 271:
::::Personally I support expansion of the tool, if you reject it then I support more indefinite semi protection, I also am more and more supporting living peoples ability to opt out of the project, more and more its clear to me that not only are we unable to keep malicious and defamatory content and additions from being mirrored through the project to all corners of the world wide web especially in regard to semi notable living people but that there is also some support amongst unverified users to allow this. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 21:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:I'm a WMF developer, and although I'm not directly involved with Pending Changes, I don't think there are any further updates scheduled for the near future and I don't know of anyone actively working on the project at the moment. There may, however, be a new project prototyped in the near future that could be a replacement for pending changes. Personally, I would suggest leaving Pending Changes at its current usage level (or ending the trial if that's what most people want). [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 23:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::Tryptofish: I totally understand the chicken/egg problem you're describing here. But Pending Changes has been in use on English Wikipedia for longer than six months. It's also running permanently on millions of articles on other Wikimedia sites, albeit under a different implementation. As far as we're concerned the ball is in the community's court right now. We can't devote more manpower to a feature that still doesn't have clear support after more than than half a year of live testing and improvement. If that support can be demonstrated, we're willing to work with you all on [[:mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap|improving it in the future]], but not until that happens. <
:::And I think that what you say is entirely reasonable. I'm saying that this probably means that we won't continue to use it at this project. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Coincidentally, before reading this discussion specifically, I asked Jimbo the same question since he'd have contact with the devs. Originally November was the time; I wanted to see what he has to say on whether it's still even happening at all. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 04:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 324:
What we all need is a clear, current consensus to come out of the community so that we can end the perpetual trials and move to either turn it off permanently, or improve and use it in the long run. Not a running debate about the past. (Just to be clear: I'm here to act as a community liason for tech staff, not to be spokesman for every Foundation action or decision of the past months or years.)
As far as turning off Pending Changes while we have a discussion, I fielded the idea to tech staff today. If it were as easy as flipping a switch, then I think we'd be comfortable potentially doing it as a show of good faith. But we've always maintained that if we turn it off, we should leave it off, not flip-flop. Though it's not extremely hard to turn Pending Changes itself off, there ''are'' some issues around it that would require time and energy, such as maintaining the [[software testing|test suite]]. In general, tech feels that if they're going to expend resources shutting it down, it should be your permanent choice, not an interim one. If you don't want Pending Changes used while you have a discussion about its long term future, then as always the community can simply remove it from all articles. <
:I think that temporarily removing it from all articles would be entirely sufficient to fulfill the promises that have been made, even if it is retained on some test pages outside the main namespace. It may not be very important to remove it from the small list of articles where it is currently active, and it may not be beneficial, and the discussion below ''does'' need to happen; but it will be much easier to have that discussion and get people to work through the myriad policy issues necessary for Wiki-wide adoption if they feel that the outcomes of previous discussions have been respected. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 08:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 352:
:::::::I don't think there are any figures, especially not as regards, the number of good edits rejected or the number of bad edits accepted. The only assessment is the users that have been active with the tool, users experience. I would like to see figures of the users most active in accepting or rejecting pending edits if there are any as those users would be good to get comments as to the operation and interface questions. There are some users that just object to pending protection as a matter of principal in regards to free to edit and article control issues. In reply to Wnt's comment about the upgrade there is a link to a ''front office'' comment [[User_talk:Risker#Long_post_is_long.]] that until the community decides if they actually want the tool or not any upgrades are not being worked on, why waste their time if it is not even clear what the community wants to do with the tool. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:I personally would like to establish a clear policy on applying PC before deciding whether to continue it and ''then'' making policy changes. In addition, I would like the finalized details of the poll agreed upon by the community before any poll starts. I think the "jury" idea is not bad and that the community/voters should be voting based solely on whether PC is helpful or not (e.g., technical (dis)advantages, effectiveness, trueness to Wikipedia's mission, etc.) and how it should be used (hopefully, after this RfC, the only issue about this is what scale it should be used on—all articles, BLPs only, also non-mainspace pages, etc.). I don't like the idea of "yes/no" because it doesn't mean anything—we should have separate categories for "does it work [technically/effectively/efficiently/etc.]" and for this we would need some sort of data analysis. I'm sort of disappointed the WMF didn't hire a data analyst to examine PC. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 03:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::I totally agree that it's more complicated than just yes or no. It's more like, "How?", "Where?", and "Should we at all?" This kind of complexity is exactly why we agreed with Risker's idea about a community jury of sorts, since their first task could be to make "the finalized details of the poll" and get them "agreed upon by the community before any poll starts", like you said. If we could do it without pre-selecting community members responsible for that, then that's fine too. However we do it, the ideal situation is that the next poll answers both the core turn it off/leave it on question ''and'' the more complex questions about how and where to use it. Hopefully without confusing all those factors. <
:::Thats a difficult ( impossible ) thing to assess with a single poll and also imo completely unnecessary. What I see as the simple version, is a simple yes or no to the tool and then just allow normal editing usage to take over, there is imo no need to set any guidelines as to usage, if the answer is yes, keep the tool then just allow normal editing and ongoing assessment and experience of where it is useful and where it is not useful to settle where ever it wants to naturally. If the answer is no then just switch it off, attempting to use community polling to set such guidelines for usage levels is simply a wrong idea and likely never going to find any consensus either. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 14:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::I'm still not convinced a poll is a good idea at all. I don't think it is needed, because so far no objections to the actual ''use'' of PC have become apparent, all the objections have been of a procedural nature, hurt feelings at the perception that consensus was ignored and so forth. I am trying to convince everyone to let that go and address the real question. If real, substantive objections are raised then ''maybe'' we should move ahead with polling. If none are manifest by the end of the week I say we move ahead with clarifying how it is to be used and forget the poll on ''if'' it to be used. Voting would allow people to oppose solely on procedural issues. Discussion requires them to provide a real, substantive reason not to continue using it. So far no such reasons have been presented. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 752:
Points 1,2,3 are useless, unless WMF will accept #4. We need input from {{user|Steven (WMF)}}, on that concern. Ie, are WMF willing to compromise on continued development of the extension if enwiki support further trials but not necessarily acceptance of implementation? We need an answer to that, before we can form this proposal. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::I definitely don't mean to speak for the developers, of course, but I think they already have answered that: they are not willing to do more unless the community commits to implementing whatever they will come up with. As I've pointed out above, that creates a Catch-22, because it forces us to decide based on what exists at present. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
::: Just to respond: it's not that the staff require that the community implements "whatever they will come up with". When it comes to any proposed new features or work, there is no absolutism in accepting new alterations to Pending Changes. It's simply that right now there are no full time developers devoted to Pending Changes, so if we're going to take time away from other projects to work on it going forward then we need to have a clear picture of where and how the community wants to use the feature, if at all. To answer Chzz directly about point four: if the community comes out of this with another trial as the response, then development is probably not going to move past maintenance. The community is welcome to continue using it however you want, including in trial mode, but that's the likely response when it comes to developer time at the Foundation. <
::::Yes, thanks, I should have worded that better. I guess the better point is that the community will have to commit to PC in its present form if the community hopes, realistically, to be able eventually to use PC in an improved form. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::No worries! I just wanted to be clear. Anyway, the commitment we're talking about here doesn't need to be absolute or wide-ranging by any means. I've had other people ask me, so I should probably say: there is no specific threshold of articles (by number or by type) that the Foundation is shooting for here in evaluating whether we need to restart development or not. If the community can only get consensus for limited use of some kind, then that's okay, and we can discuss what coding needs to be done and on what time frame. It's only trials that are unlikely to provoke more staff development of the feature. <
:::::I'd actually like a clearer answer, Mt. Walling, as {{xt|"directly about point four [..] probably not going to move past maintenance"}} - 'probably' is not very clear. In this RfC, we are discussing our options. Are you saying that, if we will not accept full implementation at this time, WMF will give up on PC? <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 04:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::My instinct is to say "no" to that exact question, because it implies we're demanding some kind of sweeping use of Pending Changes to work on it more. That's not the case. And "full implementation" is a very vague concept at this point which could mean any number of things. Also, we shouldn't "give up" on features currently being used, trial or not. If it's used in any format, it's our job to maintain it or at least see that it's not impairing the regular functioning of the site. Anyway, let me try to put it another way: if the community wants major development to start again, then you need to demonstrate there's a real need for it. Another limited trial for a month or two (after half a year of trials) says to us that consensus has not reached the point where we should take resources away from other critical projects to devote them to Pending Changes again. <
*Comment. The cut off should be 50/50. Not 2/3rds. We all get equal say. Not one group gets two votes for every one vote of the other group. --[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 00:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 805:
**Unacceptable, especially when you have just yourself made a proposal here. I reverted, and do not even think of reverting. This lack of AGF is alarming. I read the discussion, and this is entirely on purpose. And considering that your unconsidered actions, Off2riorob, are largely responsible for the present mess, you should certainly not take the initiative here. I remind you that I am the one who, alone, made the proposal for this trial which was approved, so I do know what I'm talking about. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 04:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Really go on then, you reverted, because you can, and threaten, but so what, your additions are worthy of the talkpage only , please consider that and attempt to jion in . and help focus. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 04:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Not trying to play the big mediator here... but calm down guys. I think Cenarium's proposal is okay personally, but I understand why Off2riorob is wanting to try and keep things cleanly on topic. Both of you are right, and acting in good faith. <
*I endorse the suggestion to avoid any kind of polling before proper discussion on the next steps has been undertaken, and to this effect I made a proposal below. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 04:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 928:
*This is a very difficult proposal to get my head around. Which steps are you suggesting a two thirds community consensus for? You appear to want to switch the tool off and then seek a two thirds majority for this - # Propose "Pending Changes Step A". - to summarize - you suggest removing semi protection from some articles and for a set period of time replacing with pending protection and collecting data and evaluating the data. If two thirds support is not attained then that will be the end of the issue? or will you then poll the next option and again require a two thirds majority? Also what number of articles are you considering this on and for what time limit? If the first option is rejected you will poll the next option, allowing admins to use pending as they want to - you say the numbers and times lengths should be watched, what figures are you considering and for how long? and then you propose that indef pending can be added but a discussion should be had for each article at WP:ANI again this option will require a two thirds majority. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
* This looks like a pretty well-formed proposal to me. Points one and two give us time for a breather and to think about the relative merits of Pending Changes. The rest looks like the kind of very gradual rollout (with plenty of time for feedback and broad community oversight, including to step back if need be) that is appropriately cautious. Even a limited, step-by-step commitment to long term use will show the developers it's time to recommit time and energy to Pending Changes. If there's volunteer involvement, we could also probably the time that it's not being used/used in level one only to flesh out a new roadmap and ideas for future development. <
::This is just a switch off and poll the community to retrial - it will never get two thirds support - users have had enough of trailing a simple protection tool, we all have experience of it, its time to poll yes or no to the tool and move on. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 01:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 935:
Lets just go for the gravy - the editors know what the tool does now, lets just do a simple poll - Keep or Reject. Looking for a two thirds support for it. as simple as this below, we can hold it here with community notices. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:I think people still aren't ready for a simplistic yes/no poll. Hasty polls caused a lot of bad feeling the last two times around, and I would hate to endure that again if new proposals for options are being put forth (like above). <
::Hi Stephen, people are ready, they have all experienced the tool, they don't need any more polling to see if they want to add the tool instead of semi protection in another trial, the proposal above is totally unworkable and without the possibility of ever getting anywhere, apart from the switching off of the tool. There is nothing really more to trial, we just need go for the end game now, the naval gazing turns people off. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::: The statement "the proposal above is totally unworkable and without the possibility of ever getting anywhere" is not borne out by the fact that there are several perpetual participants in this RFC who support it, in part or whole. <
::::There will never ever be a 66 percent support for a new trial as is described in the proposal. Users have little energy for this issue as it is, the trial is over so lets see if the community supports the tools usage or not. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 01:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::The trial only ends once PC is disabled and metrics taken. —<font color="228B22">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy]]''</font> <font color="00008B"><small><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Hyper Combo K.O.!]])</sup></small></font> 02:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,041:
"Pending changes" is ''not'' perfect. It is a bit like the first self-starters for automobiles, which were not perfect either. We did not remove self-starters until they were perfected. We used them anyway. They work better now. Similarly, we should use what we have - the imperfect "Pending changes" and expect the tool to improve. Just like self-starters did. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:I feel like listing all the possible uses/configurations for Pending Changes is really useful for helping clarify the views and arguments made here. Should we expand on this and use the RFC to create some kind of map or detailed descriptions of these factors in a way that everyone can scan? Maybe even just an FAQ? <
::Not a bad idea. [[User:Ronk01|<font color="black">'''Ronk01'''</font>]] [[User talk:Ronk01|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 19:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
| |||