Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions/Archive 1

message: What is the best way to determine whether an account is "aged"? CMummert · talk 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean. You could just click "oldest" on Special:Contributions, I suppose. Sean William @ 18:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, what criteria should we use to determine whether an account is old enough. As in: 100 edits? 1 year? 1000 edits? 1 month? 1 week? Personally, I think that 3 months would be a nice round number, so I'll throw it into the discussion. CMummert · talk 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could make the limit shorter if there was a way to easily remove the priviledge from an account. If there's no way to remove it, all the sleeper accounts people create could make the reviewed revision tag useless. That way we would have the option of not having to block a user for improperly using the reviewed tag. - Taxman Talk 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every admin could remove it from editors I have understood from the documentation: "Note: If a user has their Editor rights removed, they will not automatically be re-granted (the editor status log is checked for revokations)." But I propose a double criteria. Like 3 months and 500 edits or something. I'm not 100% sure if it's possible, but it think it is a bit better gauge. Otherwise I do think that we don't need to hand these things out TOO easy. It should be sufficiently hard that people won't start creating accounts and gathering edits for the sole purpose of gaining blessing rights. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 60 days, 500 edits, emailconfirmed combined are the default criteria. Voice-of-All 11:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's seems like a very good default. I will put this into the proposal here, "Granting editor" rights shouldn't be about software capabilities, but precisely about how this is set on Wikipedia. I think 60 days, 500 edits, and email-confirmed is sufficiently annoying to deter vandalism. --Merzul 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What about users who are disruptive enough to have been blocked recently but not disruptive enough to be banned indefinitely? Users who edit-war frequently, for example, should not be automatically be granted revision-flagging privileges. The 60 days should reset if the person is blocked, and if they are not really so disruptive an admin can grant it manually. —Centrx→talk • 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be 60 days and 500 edits since the most recent block expired. 500 edits is not enough to show something is trustworthy, it needs to be 500 good edits, which is best judged by whether they've been blocked for them. --Tango 13:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aged accounts

message: :The newest reviewed revision is the default one seen to our readers (non-logged in users).
If anons want to edit the article, will they be able to see the latest non-flagged article? Perhaps that should be an option/tab/button. If anons can't see the latest revision, then how can they edit the article efficiently? Sean William @ 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a tab, and is mentioned in the tag, along with a link to edit. Actually the tag perhaps makes it more clear that anons can edit than now. Voice-of-All 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Locking out IPs

message: Why would we need these two:
* Have been around for a while
* Have some depth (not a stub)
It doesn't really matter how much content it has if it meets the other criteria. Sometimes a short vandalism free article is all that's needed and is more than a traditional encyclopedia would have anyway. It's valuable to tag good short stubs in my mind. - Taxman Talk 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the criteria should be as minimal as possible, to minimize the amount of time wasted to bickering over whether to flag a version or not. Just "Stable, no vandalism, meets WP:BLP" is about right. I fear another FA/GA process evolving - look at GA, which once had modest requirements and now is an FA-clone. CMummert · talk 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the one hand, the tag makes it more clear that anons can edit than now, but on the other, I am just being catious not to stablize pages that could use a lot of growth. Buy I'm on the fence on this one I suppose. Voice-of-All 23:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for use

message: Good idea. For starters, I think every article would need to be nominated, and the tool limited for admins, for a short trial period. Long-term, I think the editor criteria should be similar to the minimums for access to VandalProof. Yechiel Man 20:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominations would hurt scalability, perhaps later, when and if "quality" reviews might be enabled. But this should be as scalable as possible. Voice-of-All 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My thoughts - nominations

message: What about quality reviews, is that not going to be used on the English Wikipedia? I thought that was an excellent idea, so that the standards for stable is basically just "free from vandalism and BLP issues"; but after an article becomes FA that it is given a quality flag, and then some form of monthly or so review cycle could start? --Merzul 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If i read the information about the extension, it seems to indicate multiple types of flags can be implemented. So there could be quality flags, "trusted version" flags, "WP:1.0" flags, you name it. But i think the idea is to first start with "trusted version" flags. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems reasonable, letting us getting used to the system... boring, but reasonable. :) --Merzul 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have "editor" and "reviewer" levels. Editor seems to be for the "trusted revisions" plan and rights can be granted automatically. Then you also have Reviewer, and those rights seem to be for quality designations and these rights need to be granted explicit --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality reviews?

message: I would suggest this for at least all FAs, possibly GAs too. I think some larger WikiProjects even have their own A-class review system. WP:WPBIO for instance. As far as becoming an "editor" goes, I'm not sure if it should be automatic, is there possibility for abuse/misuse? Also, I cna imagine many users who would be eligible would not even use/want the ability. I would suggest we just have a page where people can just list themselves using a -type template and admins can just go through and give permission to those who meet the criteria. Also, the MediaWiki page linked to talks of a "Reviewer" status as well. Is that to be included here? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good idea

message: Are the plans still that the German Wikipedia will first experiment with system? I'm a bit worried about the current proposal to give editor rights liberally, and not have any process for when revisions are marked as stable. Won't people just edit-war and mark their revision as stable? --Merzul 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Review wars can be treated just like any other edit war. Perhaps 3RR can be extended to include that. Voice-of-All 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's true. Perhaps even a 1FR, so one should at most flag one revision (of the same article) in a 24h period or something. But my concern is not that I fear things will be worse, on the contrary, I'm hoping that this should solve every single problem on Wikipedia. ;) --Merzul 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One could classify revert-warring by flagging revisions as "wheel warring", based on the strict definition of the word. A few ArbCom cases would quickly stop any warring between parties, if the wheel war definition is accepted :). Sean William @ 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: An article undergoing an edit war is by definition not stable, and the previous stable version should be marked. Anyone engaging in this should be liable to have their editor flag removed for a period of time. Warofdreams talk 01:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Will there be a German Experiment?

message: I'm a tad confused on how this system would actually be used. Would there be a queue or something similar that would alert "editors" to articles needing reviewed? --- RockMFR 05:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus seems to be for starting with a very simple no-hassle non-bureaucratic implementation. Meaning any editor in good standing can flag revision that satisfy the rather simple criteria outlined on this page. I think this will already solve some important problems with vandalism and so on, but I do hope that at some point we will try to integrate this system with our quality assurance processes. --Merzul 12:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a page to list unreviewed pages. Voice-of-All 17:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would discourage forcing people to list pages for approval - it's tiresome and the list would be too big. Rather, let articles that just need to pass the non 'quality' criteria fall into a category if they have not been checked for too long. Then people can easily find the ones which are most urgent and approve/disapprove the edits. Richard001 07:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there could be a Special:Unreviewedpages or something, that would really work well. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I mean, it is automatic, otherwise I wouldn't have said that...heh Voice-of-All 17:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Queue?

message: Oppose. This is not Citizendium or whatever it is they're calling the "improved" replacement for Wikipedia. The current system works well and watchful editors catch vandalism when it occurs. There's often room for improvement even in "stable" versions of articles, when knowledgeable editors discover Wikipedia and begin to contribute. Admins cannot be given too much power as we've already seen the abuse of such power across the board. Badagnani 02:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This power wouldn't only be given to admins. And it's easily reversable, apparently. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you are a bit confused as to what this system is. It is not a way to push POV, call versions "better" than others, let admins exercise extra power, let people use their degrees and/or real-life status to win an argument, or anything else. It is simply a system to make sure that vandalized versions are not displayed to the public. —METS501 (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [double edit conflict] Agreed with Mets501. It is necessary to make editing easier for trusted users. As Mets501 said above, we can have a request page similar to RFA and (my idea) have a noticeboard. ([ →] zel zany - review) 02:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Then according to SchuminWeb's logic, RFA is bureaucratic. ([ →] zel zany - review) 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this isn't a vote. But that's OK, we need to discuss it over before it's implemented. I just think that this is what Wikipedia has been needing for years; something almost identical was discussed at the Wikimedia conference and was deemed necessary by basically all, including Jimbo. —METS501 (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The study where that statistic comes from is from 2003, and it is rather irrelevant when there might be hundreds of people that view an vandalized, or obscenely vandalized, page in the interim. —Centrx→talk • 03:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IBM study from April 2004 has a median time of 2.8 minutes for mass deletions and 1.7 minutes for obscene mass deletions. —Centrx→talk • 03:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with Wordbuilder. ([ →] zel zany - review) 03:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much my opinion here. It seems like an extra, unnecessary level of complication. Plus, with the sheer number of articles, I have strong doubts about the ability to keep this going for more than a few weeks. So I'll have to oppose too. Crystallina 22:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Unlike page protection, there would be no reason not to tag a later version of the article as stable when appropriate. It's not a permanent choice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The articles that aren;t overwhelmed by vandalism wouldn't need to have a stable version marked, in which case the latest changes would be visible. At least that's how I understand it. There is no need, or desire to have a stable version for all articles, only for relatively mature ones. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: In response to Nick. While it was melodramatic, he is raising a very important point here, something that is fundamental and will be a major reason people might want to oppose this whole idea. I hope Nick will engage in this discussion and further elaborate on why he feels this way. (While article writing is very important, we have already over 1 million articles, perhaps it is now time to start thinking about quality?)
So, about our Unique Selling Point, or rather the Myth that Wikipedia is the Encyclopaedia that Anyone Can Edit. Here's the rub: we constantly reject information, it isn't at all the case that anyone can put any nonsense they want on Wikipedia. So if a new editor, who is yet unfamiliar with our content policies, decides to add their opinion, we reject it and explain why, and this is how we will continue to do it in the future.
Two things about new users, their thrill of editing will not diminish because all Wikipedians will immediately see the current revision, and will be even more thrilled when their edits gets confirmed. Assuming good faith depends on how we treat contributions from new editors, not the mechanism by which it is reviewed. The current solution that works so well is to revert them and accuse them of being sock-puppets (or members of the discovery institute), and what not. ;)
In any case, what I most admire about Wikipedia is the spirit of innovation, and how we spontaneously come up with new ways of doing things to remain competitive. If this proposal is rejected, I will leave Wikipedia... (or not, I can't even take a much needed Wikibreak!). Cheers, Merzul 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional melodrama

message: I tentatively support the general idea, but agree that some things have to be carefully watched. Possible problems I see:
* Confusion about which page is considered the most recent/best etc... (while not flagged, a version post-flag may well be more extensive and better - how do we ensure that editors do not edit from an older version, just because it is flagged?
* Why call those trusted users editors, that confuses the issue - we are all editors, even anons (I like the automatic process for entry, its going to be an elite group otherwise)?
* Will there be a minimum size/content limit before an article can be flagged?
MadMaxDog 02:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, only high profile pages (as I stated just above) would be monitored by this system. —METS501 (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible issues

message: This idea is good in principle. But in contentious topic areas where WP:AGF has gone out the window (e.g., articles related to global warming, certain international political disputes, or pseudoscience), it could lead to problems. Raymond Arritt 02:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with contentious issues or not. It has to do with the fact that pages which were blanked or replaced with a bunch of 4-letter words wouldn't be displayed immediately to the public. —METS501 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about editors tagging/untagging versions in attempt to gain advantage? Raymond Arritt 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Potentially similar restrictions as used with admin tools (i.e. no flagging articles on which you are engaged in a conflict) could be implemented. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just watched, with my own eyes several days ago, an admin unblock another admin who had violated 3RR and been blocked for such--within 1 hour. The unblocking admin had also been involved in the same article, in which both had been involved in controversy. A complaint was made yet the conflict of interest was allowed to stand. With such a failure to adhere to our own rules and showing of favoritism amongst one another, admins simply cannot be trusted with this additional responsibility. Badagnani 03:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not an admin only benefit. I'm strongly in favour of this, and I'm not an admin. I do feel passionately about Wikipedia though, as I think it is such a wonderful project. I believe we should try to use the best possible tools available to ensure quality. If you have any clear objections about how this system could be abused, we need to discuss them. This is why this talk page is here. --Merzul 09:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Principle, yes; practice, maybe not

message: This is not something that can be implemented by the consensus of English Wikipedia editors; rather, it requires Board or similar-level approval. Discussion by the Board on similar implementations for the whole of Wikimedia has been ongoing for quite some time. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it won't be implemented until they reach a decision. Period. Suggest it be marked as historical and we move along. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. (I fully believe you about the discussion, but) is there there a place where this discussion has been documented? —METS501 (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might see, for instance, this discussion of the stable versions proposal that has been under development since before Wikimania 2006, including discussion of some experimentation of the concept done on dewiki. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Where do you get that idea? Do you have any special basis for this comment? As I understand, your comment is incorrect and rather irrelevant. —Centrx→talk • 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, there is no reason not to discuss the issue here and there is no reason to think that discussions here will not affect a decision. In addition, even supposing some sequestered discussion and decision that is somehow completely unaffected by discussion on Wikipedia, the discussion here is generally about how to implement it. As I understand it, flagged revisions are going to be implemented and here we are deciding how exactly to do it. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree that we should strive to emulate Citizendium, and reject this proposal completely, for reasons stated above. Badagnani 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure who said we should? Voice-of-All 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I find this curious that they aren't sure about this, where do you get this information from? The foundation has already paid an external contractor to implement this software capability. As Centrx said, this will be part of MediaWiki software as of the official release of version 1.11 or something like that. The question is if we are going to waste the Foundations's effort because we can't reach a consensus on how to use the system. Let's not let them down on this one, let's try to address all concerns. Whatever we do, I don't want another WP:ATT type battle, I hope we can engage in a friendly discussion here, where we listen to each other, and all concerns about the system are addressed. NO PREMATURE VOTING! :) I think this is all very much up to the community to decide! --Merzul 09:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not for us to decide

message: I think such a radical change to Wikipedia cannot be rolled out all at once. There should be some sort of smaller scale experiment to test the merits of this proposal. Perhaps limit this feature to only a small subset of pages at first and gradually expand the range. This will allow everybody to see how well this works in practice. nadav (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps test this on test.wikipedia? ([ →] zel zany - review) 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Badagnani 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are opposed to even testing it? —Centrx→talk • 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opposition to testing this on a test wiki, Badagnani, I find quite ridiculous. If you are not going to have an open mind about things, why bother discussing them? Richard001 08:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I do have a right to state my view. I believe this unnecessary proposal, which attempts to emulate the working process of a rival but much poorer encyclopedia called Citizendium, is being pushed through the English Wikipedia without the knowledge of the general editorship. I continue to object strongly to the manner in which this discussion is being actively kept off the radar of the general editors (those who provide most of WP's content, as opposed to those who prefer working with the site's code and procedural matters). The editor who removed the notice to the general editorship (within 1 hour) has expressed contempt for those who do not agree with this proposal. If the proposal is a bad one--and it is--I will not fail to voice, and continue to voice, my objection. Badagnani 08:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I will not continue to find your opposition to it ridiculous - it's a test wiki for goodness sakes - it allows us to see the thing in action so we can make informed decisions. Besides, it's already in place - see above. Richard001 09:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do a test

message: First of all, I am opposed to the idea. I believe that what this means is that certain articles would be reviewed as more or less "complete" and thus no major changes to the article would improve it henceforth, but I believe this is merely a matter of opinion. Shouldn't we be taking the stance that all articles are never complete and there's always going to be something to improve upon? Also, this makes it seem that certain articles with these tags will be deemed "perfect" and any revisions past that point will either be overlooked or just reverted on this basis. This in turn creates a form a elitism as to who's reivision gets to be the flagged version, and I can just see editors vying to be the one with the flagged version; oy. OTL --十 八 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it won't be like that. This is for high-profile pages that have lots of vandalism. ([ →] zel zany - review) 02:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is not about perfect versions and not allowing changes. Revisions could not be rejected because the article is already featured, or something similar. The only ones which would be rejected would be those that were vandalism. —METS501 (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the aim is to sell Wikipedia content as a set of CD-ROMs or whatever format is projected, the idea would make sense. I doubt we'd get a straight answer if this were the reason behind this proposal (which seems to have been discussed offline quite a bit by those attempting to steer this proposal, before it was pitched here). Let's have full transparency on this, okay? Not just partial transparency, but full transparency. That includes specifics of the aforementioned previous high-level discussions. Badagnani 02:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And vandalism, as mentioned earlier, is generally fixed in about 30 seconds or less. It's not a problem and the "solution" creates an even bigger problem. Badagnani 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: This is incorrect. The April 2004 IBM study of Wikipedia has a median time of a 2.8 minutes for mass deletions and 1.7 minutes for obscene mass deletions, i.e. a full half of such vandalism goes unreverted for that duration, and that was more than three years ago. —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing is, Wikipedia content can be redistributed, copied, and sold for any purpose under the terms of the GFDL. So according to your logic, it would make sense. ([ →] zel zany - review) 02:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the thing about vandalism is that it takes up database space in the edit history. ([ →] zel zany - review) 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That argument is largely insignificant, as storage space is not an issue for Wikimedia. —METS501 (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because that is what is initended does not mean that my theories will not some day become true. The only way to prevent that would be to only allow articles with "lost of vandalism" to be flagged and leave the other articles to the normal way of doing things as we have now.--十 八 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete articles?

message: How about changing this, and only on high-visibility pages, any logged-in user with 250 edits or more can mark revisions as not blatantly vandalized, or in other words, patrolled. The most recent patrolled version would be displayed to anonymous users, but any logged-in user would see the most recent version. This is a far toned down suggestion, yet still achieves much of the same goal. Is this better? —METS501 (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this can change most of the opposes' minds, then sure. ([ →] zel zany - review) 03:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Badagnani 03:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Badagani, I'm going to send you an email in a couple of minutes. —METS501 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already patrol through our watchlists. Badagnani 03:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the problem is that even for that 60 seconds, hundreds, if not thousands of people (on highly-visible pages) have seen that vandalism and don't know how to revert it. Many times I've been researching on Wikipedia and will randomly come across a page which says "BILL iS GaY OMGZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!" —METS501 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? It seems to me that you're more or less proposing that we try to save face by allowing such a system to pass. Wikipedia already has a wonky reputation since anyone can edit it and this is why most people don't accept cites from wiki articles (wiki artciles aren't even allowed to cite other wikis). This won't change the opinion of the readers (the non-editors) who use Wikipedia primarily as an information source. And on high profile articles, the vandalism is reverted so quickly that all a reader would have to do would be to refresh the page once they spot the vandalism, and it will have already been reverted by that time. Sure, this proposal sounds like a nice curtosy to the readers, but I believe it is bad for the editors.--十 八 03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, this proposal would change my vote (from oppose to support) on the matter. My only remaining concern would be the usability and looks of the implementation. Cedars 09:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative that might be acceptable to more

message: Split on this, right now leaning toward oppose. I'll give my pro/cons in the hope of eliciting comments:
;Pros:
This would instantly eliminate the problem of readers seeing vandalized content.
;Cons:
Many of the worst editors I've encountered on Wikipedia satisfy all of the Editor criteria outlined here. They don't vandalize, but their contributions are usually low-quality and they get by because they don't fight when their edits are fixed. I despair of these users ever being able to Review properly. Since Editor status is granted automatically, we'll have to whine to admins to get it revoked, leading to RfCs, ANI threads, ArbCom cases, etc.
- Merzbow 03:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we use something like RFA. ([ →] zel zany - review) 03:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How about my alternative above. Is that more acceptable? —METS501 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of restricting the scope of "Review" to be simply a marking of unvandalized versions. If you make an edit, you get another check box that lets you make this the marked version, but you can't change the marked version if you don't edit. This will eliminate "Review" wars. - Merzbow 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm we'd still need a way to mark the contributions of non-Editors who made a good edit; how about one can only mark the most recent revision as good? - Merzbow 03:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest we get away from the RfA comparisons. Many people hate the way RfA is run and it seems too "big" for this type of thing. I would suggest something more like the approval process for AWB or VandalProof. People put their name on a page, an admin comes though, makes sure they meet whatever criteria and aren't likely to abuse the tool, then approves or disapproves. there is generally no discussion except in borderline cases. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split opinion

message: We don't need oppose/support sections just yet. Unless you completely disagree with the idea of stable version, I'd suggest proposing changes to the policy instead. Voice-of-All 03:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with VOA. ([ →] zel zany - review) 03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "stable version" is a good idea for a paper encyclopedia. We are not. Badagnani 03:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not relevant. ([ →] zel zany - review) 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: All right, I'll be more clear: I completely disagree with the idea of a "stable version" (however that is construed). This is in direct relevance to what is written above. Badagnani 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a new proposal

message: This change would assume bad faith of new and anonymous editors and would surely drive away potential contributors. In other words, it would tell new/anonymous users "Yeah, you can edit, but we don't trust that you're edits are going to be any good, so we're not going to actually use them until someone else agrees." It's just not a good idea.
For those who are really concerned about the stability of the article they're using, there's Stablepedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is only for vandalism. ([ →] zel zany - review) 03:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How will the flagged revisions system differentiate between good edits and vandalism? Wouldn't a human have to do that, and if so, why not just have the human revert the vandalism? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent point. Badagnani 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not it is not, people review revisions as "not vandalized", and they become the default. There is not automatic/heuristic based software system that does it, unlike stablepedia. Voice-of-All 03:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're saying that this is something that will be turned on and off for individual pages, similarly to semi-protection, then that would be OK if the community desires to use this new tool. Otherwise, it sounds like a really bad idea. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is for individual pages that have high vandalism levels. ([ →] zel zany - review) 03:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully administrators would turn off flagged revisions after a week or so after the vandalism to make sure that anonymous editors are not being continually alienated. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New and anonymous editors

message: I see that the notice of this discussion has been removed from the "watchlist" page. That took less than 1 hour. Is there the perception that there have been too many comments already? Badagnani 03:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might wanna go ask the admin who removed it. ([ →] zel zany - review) 03:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of notice of this discussion from watchlist page

message: I've been yearning for this for a long time — it would help build our reputation as a stable encyclopedia that can't be easily harmed because of what some idiot does. Furthermore, it helps establish article milestones — and carves them directly in the edit history! Flagged revisions is a spectacular idea. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Messedrocker. ([ →] zel zany - review) 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And me! This is an important step along the road to becoming a stable, trusted encyclopedia. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: yes plz

message: Another thing to think about is the "friendliness" of semi-protection. Which is friendlier, semi-protection, where anons can't edit, or flagged revisions, where anons can edit, but their edits won't appear for about a minute? —METS501 (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not make up statistics out of the air - it is a very bad practice. Just as Badagnani has given misleading figures about the speed vandalism is cleaned up, you are here giving very 'pleasing' but entirely arbitrary figures about how long it would take to approve. We could place unapproved articles in a category automatically, but it might still take a long time to get approval - we have no idea at this stage. Even without backlogs it might be a day or more. The goal would be to get as many 'trusted' users as we can, provided they have a clue what they are doing. We could also make it clear which articles were unwatched, since there would be no harm of vandalism anymore, then we could try to get every article watched such that there would be someone ready to approve new edits. Things would have to start off small until we built up a large base of patrollers, we don't want people to have to wait too long to get their edit publicly visible. Richard001 08:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: I just added the $wgFlaggedRevsOverride option. Setting it to false would mean that instead of the default revision being overridden, there will be a "stable version" tab that will show the latest quality/stable version. Voice-of-All 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not interested. The current system works well and we don't need to emulate Citizendium. Badagnani 04:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is trying to do that. Voice-of-All 04:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Badagnani, can you explain how you think that this is emulating Citizendium? As far as I know, Citizendium has no policy like this that we are proposing. —METS501 (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I, on the contrary, think that the $wgFlaggedRevsOverride option is a good idea, and hopefully it will be enabled by default. I am interested. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some alternatives

message: I can see the use of something to keep vandalism from being live the instant it occurs. Since most vandalism appears to be from anon IP's something that keeps anon IP edits from being live until reviewed or a period of time has elapsed without a review up or down. Based on the documentation, extension appears to only support only one level at which a revision isn't shown (0 = unapproved), but doing something like I'm suggesting would require having at least two and maybe more levels at which the default served version is not the most recent. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automatic aged approval?

message: This information from the "Not for us to decide" section above. How interesting, and appropriate! And how typical that nobody thought to mention this kernel of information before now. "We'd still love to hear your input, but it's a done deal, and it WILL go through," eh? I call again for 100% (not 90% or 80%) transparency on this issue. And does the editor who removed the notice of this discussion from the watchlist page within 1 hour of it going up think we've forgotten that s/he has removed it? Let's have a response on that, please. Badagnani 09:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, everything has been open. How do I know anything about this? I've been on Wikipedia for 4-5 months at most. I'm a freaking newbie, it's just that this is a volunteers project, and they don't have paid personal to inform all of us about what is happening. You need to look at Mediawiki.org, where software development is going on. Why this paranoia here, we are all here trying to build the World's Largest Free Encyclopedia. It is not a done deal, it is still up to us, how we are going to use these features!!! Please engage the discussion, what are your real objections to this??? --Merzul 09:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed this from Watchdetails because it's not an issue of importance to the whole of Wikipedia, at least at this point. *Nothing* we decide here is going to go through without board approval, and discussion by the board and on Wikipedia regarding the issue has been going on since 2001. Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, stable versions will be implemented on Wikipedia; it's just a matter of when and how. This is one of many proposed approaches to the implementation; all the previous approaches, such as Wikipedia:Stable versions, have failed. I personally find having this discussion here completely pointless, but others seem to disagree, so I suppose it will go on. Frankly, if you take issue with how the board conducts their business, contact the board or find elsewhere to contribute. Ranting here is not going to make any difference. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Board also going to decree precise specifications on what users will have the power to flag a revision as stable, what criteria should apply for its use, how reverting fits in, etc.? If not, then there is nothing pointless about having discussion here. In addition, you seem to be under the impression that the people ostensibly making this decisions are completely unamenable to reason, i.e. nothing said to them will have any effect on their decision, which is absurd. Either good reasons why flagged revisions would be bad will be exposed here, or they will not be. If they are exposed and they are good, countervailing reasons, then any reasonable person must follow them. If there are no countervailing reasons why this would be a bad idea, then that will be the outcome of the discussion. Discussion here is no more pointless than discussion anywhere on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 04:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please watch your tone. I'm not saying "if you don't like the way we do things, get lost," I'm saying that neither or nor anyone other than the board has power over how the board conducts their business. If you disagree with what they do, talk to them, not to us. I'm also not a big fan of the "stable versions" concept, feeling it defeats the idea of a wiki; however, this has been discussed ad nauseum, and, ultimately, the Board wants it, so it's going to happen. I don't feel much need to get upset about it. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked for an apology. I am a native English speaker/reader and know what "Frankly, if you take issue with how the board conducts their business, contact the board or find elsewhere to contribute" means when I read it. That was absolutely uncalled for and insulting. Badagnani 10:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize that you have misinterpreted my statement -- it was not my intent to offend. I was simply attempting to voice that the board ultimately makes the decisions here; in cases where Wikipedians have been unable to come to agreement with the board, the typical result is that they leave. It's unfortunate, but it happens. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, please point discussion about watchdetails to MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails, not here. Please also read the discussion and hundreds of complaints about obnoxious notices in the watchdetails before making a contrary complaint of your own. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I think the programming job you have done in this is excellent. I was quite sceptical before I installed the extension and tried it. I think the solution you guys have come up with is excellent and I feel a bit sad that many people are quite hastily "opposing" without actually seeing it in action. For example, once an anon edits, he immediately sees that the edit has been received and that it is awaiting review. In fact, this adds a lot to our credibility, as now we are constantly reviewing stuff, but with this system people will actually notice that we verify information. In short, excellent programming, thank you for doing this, Merzul 18:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Merzul. ([ →] zel zany - review) 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The foundation has already paid an external contractor to implement this software capability

message: Citizendium uses something called stable version, but that's where the comparison ends. The fundamental and crucial different is that the review process on Citizendium is driven by Experts, whereas the implementation on Wikipedia will always remain democratic and egalitarian. There are many issues with this proposal that we need to discuss, but I hope we can keep Citizendium out of this discussion and focus on what we want for Wikipedia. --Merzul 10:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparisons to Citizendium

message: This edit is truly shocking. The broad community of editors deserve to know about this enormous potential change to our community and encyclopedia. Badagnani 10:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has already been mentioned at WP:VPP, so it's hardly being kept hush-hush. The watch list notice was simply not appropriate at this stage. Perhaps this page could also be added to WP:CENT? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done nadav (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree in the most vehement terms. This is a HUGE change that is centered at the very heart of Wikipedia. As a mere editor, I often feel that changes like this are a "done deal" before they're presented to the community at large. Please reinstitute the notice as soon as possible. Raymond Arritt 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with everyone here Raymond arritt and Badagnani. ([ →] zel zany - review) 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur as well. Let's not allow this to slip in through the back door. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Back door? It is all over the place, this discussion is not a vote anyways, but to determine how to implement it. Sticking it on everyones watchlist is overkill. (H) 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Heck, I got here by looking at my watchlist! ([ →] zel zany - review) 17:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it from my watchlist also. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I only found it from the watchlist posts. I wouldn't know about it even now if it wasn't for that watchlist notice. Some of us are mostly interested in editing articles, and don't religiously follow all the policy pages, VP, etc. Raymond Arritt 03:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the notices on watchlists go to waste - most of them are trivial things at the 'board' level that don't affect the average user at all. All important current discussions should be included, not just the 'Wikimania' stuff, which applies to almost nobody. A lot of editors don't visit the pages this sort of thing is listed on, so unless they stumble upon it by chance they are likely to never hear of it. Richard001 08:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of notice about this discussion

message: Does it mean that once a version is marked as "quality", no updates will be shown until someone comes by and marks it as "quality" again? Because that is a stupid, stupid, idea, if my understanding is right. -Amarkov moo! 16:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Updates will show. But readers always have the option to check the flagged version. (Wikimachine 16:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's how it will work, but from what I've read, it will only be for things like legal problems and featured articles (so that they will still show as featured quality, even if newer versions aren't of featured status). I guess it may help with office protections. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, missed that part. I was thinking it meant that "very trusted" editors would be able to do a kinda super stable-flag. If it's only meant to be used due to problems like that, then I don't have an objection (although I don't think it would actually be useful in those cases). -Amarkov moo! 16:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's only for high-profile pages that have high levels of vandalism. ([ →] zel zany - review) 16:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think this is for high-profile pages. Editor is. Reviewer is not. Reviewer if for what I said above. Read the last question on the FAQ at the top. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I was talking about the "better idea" right above. You guys are messing up my plan! (Wikimachine 16:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, your "better idea" is essentially the option A) below. --Merzul 16:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naysensually, the "better idea" gives guarantee that all the facts are correct. Option A is really marking the "stable version" of the article - which doesn't guarantee much. Plus people can make better judgments as a group than as individuals. Another thing is that there is no "class" distinction in the "better idea". The admins in each group can simply flag the article. (Wikimachine 16:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true, but what I meant was that the software could easily support your idea, you just need to convince us that this "better idea" is indeed a better idea ;) --Merzul 16:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. It avoids all the cons for the current flagged revision proposal. It also has some added pros. (Wikimachine 17:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How is the reviewer class supposed to work?

message: I will try to explain what I see as one important point. For me it's a bit deeper than just vandalism and even quality assurance, and has to do with alleviating the need to be so hasty, and hence make the life for us Wikipedians a lot more peaceful. There was recently a case when two Jesus related articles were heavily changed and this upset so many people whereas with stable versions such big changes can be made, discussed, and evaluated without the haste to quickly revert it. I recall scattering a "criticism of" section, and this big change requires some work and help from other editors. In this case, the discussion was very civil and productive, and stable versions would allow us to work on such matters without having to create sub-pages that only few people edit, but still the outside world don't have to see these inferior versions until it is done. I'm not convinced that these benefits should be abandoned because POV-pushers can abuse this to engage in revision-wars. --Merzul 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then they won't get this tool to play around with. ([ →] zel zany - review) 21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One important point of this: Haste

message: I'm not sure if I've read right, but I remember seeing on this page that an admin must set a page to use flagged revisions (i.e. flagged revisions can only be done on a page an admin has set to flagged revisions on). --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no admins are needed to review pages (or have them override). Voice-of-All 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's asking how you mark a page that needs to be monitored by this system. Can only admins do that? —METS501 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't flag pages as "suspicious", "needing review" or anything (though that is bug 1189). Voice-of-All 03:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin to start flagging?

message: One drawback of the system is that templates and images will not automatically update in the reviewed versions of articles in which they are (trans/in)cluded. Aaron notes that this could perhaps be addressed with an automatic updating feature. See mw:Extension talk:FlaggedRevs#Templates and images. Λυδαcιτγ 03:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would require an INDEX addition to two of the tables, which can be a pain to do retroactively, so we may want to think about whether we want to do this now. I may add the INDEX just in case, but probably not, as that may generate useless overhead if not used. The idea would be that you review a template in a way that update all reviewed revisions using it.Voice-of-All 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates and images

message: My honest (i.e., lacking a thick coat of sugar) evaluation of this proposal is that it amounts to little more than featuritis that creates a massive extra layer of bureaucracy, the benefits of which will be insignificant in comparison with its costs (in terms of time and instruction creep). However, as its adoption seems to be a foregone conclusion, I'll address more practical points which may yield a more positive cost-benefit ratio:
Wikipedia currently has over 1.8 million articles ... is it really the goal of this proposal to flag every single page and to do so dozens of times a day for high-traffic articles? To me, that seems like ... a suboptimal use of available resources, shall we say, especially if people review and flag pages on subjects that they know little about or review/flag pages without checking every single statement against every single reference. Doing the former in the absence of the latter seems pointless as an article that is free of obvious vandalism may still be non-neutral and original research. One of the comments above mentioned that this idea is not intended for low-traffic pages ... so, could we please restrict its application only to FAs (and maybe GAs)?
Also, what would people think about restricting "editor rights" – a misleading term since anyone has the right to edit Wikipedia – to people who have received some affirmation that the community trusts them: i.e., administrators and bureaucrats. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I.e.: emulating Citizendium. Badagnani 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I told you above, this idea has existed long before Citizendium. -- Ned Scott 19:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he is actually reading the proposal, looked into the background of it, or even read Citizendium's policy. Voice-of-All 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Restricting rights would probably be a bit more bureaucratic though. Voice-of-All 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, maybe. In practice, probably not. In practice, not restricting rights would require monitoring editors flagging behaviour in order to take away the rights from users that flag as "stable" inappropriate revisions (either deliberately or due to carelessness). We would have to do that in addition to current vandalism patrols. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The autopromote requirements seem fine. Voice-of-All 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind briefly stating why you disagree that the autopromote requirements would create additional work? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 500 edits, 60 days, emailconfirmed or such will filter out any vandals, with the exception of the few really, really, really determined ones. Then again, vandals that determined would just sock and then request Editor status anyway (and probably get it) if we had to manually grant it to users always. I'd treat bad Editors just like any editor that has been here for a good while; you assume good faith, and if something bad happens you deal with it. I just can't image a real problem with Editors slipping through the cracks, not much more so than users or admins that have gone rouge before (Karmafist, FSP, and such). Voice-of-All 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my concern is not so much blatant vandals, who are usually blocked within the span of having made 5-10 edits, but rather POV pushers and the like. As for the issue of whether Editors are more likely to slip through the cracks than admins ... giving some admin status involves significantly more scrutiny than (as I understand it) giving them Editor status. It's also a matter of scale ... we have about 1250 admins, but a significantly higher number of regular users. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We have lots of options for this, and I would not object to just starting out with only GAs and FAs. There are a lot of different ways that we can use this tool. -- Ned Scott 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Agree. The well developed high-traffic articles would probably only need to be tagged occasionally, since they are very stable. Articles that are under heavy development wouldn't need to be tagged at all. I don't beleive the proposal is to have every article tagged - only as desired. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Because so much can be flagged so quickly, this would likely be one of those self-correcting things that happen with Wikipedia anyways, due to how many people edit. -- Ned Scott 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the more high profile, the more people that are around to review it. Voice-of-All 19:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Merzul (and also Ned Scott), that's one of the very things that bothers me ... there is no quick no-hassle way to make sure that an article isn't vandalised or inappropriate as not all vandalism consists of ";das8d7ra8e744p8^)#&BS". We shouldn't present our articles as "stable" or as having some sort of "stamp of approval" unless it has actually gone through a rigorous process of fact-checking and validation for conformance with all relevant policies. As for high-traffic articles, I don't think a person should flag a revision as "stable" unless they've checked the entirety of the text and not merely any changes since the last review, which may or may not be accurate. That, you must admit, is a lot more work. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, this is very interesting. I see the "stable" versions as very light-weight kind of fact-checking, and "quality" revisions would be the proper thing. So in the future, an article can be marked as "quality" after it makes FA status, and when improvements are made and people think it has been improved, larger community feedback is sought in a FA review or something. This would mean a lot of work, but I think this kind of reviewing and an increased focus on fact-checking is not a Bad Thing. Now, the problem with this no-hassle approach to "stable" versions, that is, to flag an article when it contains no obvious vandalism. You raise a very valid point, I can see the danger in that. If we start touting that we now have "stable" versions, and people find faults in them, we won't exactly gain much credibility... This is indeed something we need to think about. --Merzul 20:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's not that I don't like the idea of validating articles (i.e., marking them as "quality"), but rather that I don't see a point to any half-measures. Either we should strive for full validation (i.e., checking the accuracy and neutrality of each statement in an article) or we should save our time and continue as we are. If it is the former, I'd definitely prefer to restrict "validator rights" to a group smaller than all editors with 60 days and 500 edits. My concern is that the "light-weight" checking involved with tagging articles as "stable" could be detrimental (in terms of time consumed and by being misleading). When we edit articles, we essentially endorse the changes we make, but we do not endorse the entire text of the article (unless the entire text was written by us). To tag an article as "stable" constitutes an endorsement of the text in entirety. I think that is a responsibility not to be taken lightly. We could, of course, add disclaimers about the different levels of endorsement--stable, quality, and so on--but I doubt that would help our reputation. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This essentially already occurs when WikiProjects tag articles for quality on the assessment scale. This change only adds software features that are already emulated by abusing MediaWiki's category system, so there's not much change, actually. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a difference. WikiProject assessments are for the benefit of editors only; this proposal seems to involve presenting supposedly approved or reviewed versions to readers. Also, a WikiProject assessment can be done in a matter of seconds – it is an approximate evaluation of the overall state of an article. This proposal seems to require making claims that the content of a given version of an article is accurate (and supposedly also neutral). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I heard, the extension has a capability beyond just stable revisions, which allows it to store different kinds of metadata. The devs of the extension can confirm or clarify that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but this proposal isn't about the Extension, which should be discussed on MediaWiki.org, or on some issue tracker. This proposal is about one simple use of that extension to counter vandalism and perhaps have some light-weight quality checking. --Merzul 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? The extension can be used to add things, and this proposal can be amended, so I'm afraid I don't really follow you there. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, that's true, but we have simultaneously people essentially voting support/oppose up there, and they are doing so based on the specific of this particular proposal, except of course if someone is opposed to any form of revision flagging. --Merzul 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is (probably) not a bureaucracy ... yet

message: I don't see the reason for restricting this to users with a confirmed email. What's the rationale? --- RockMFR 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the idea with confirmed e-mail would be to add some extra amount of trouble for people who create many "vandal" accounts. However, if the requirements are at 500 edits and 2 months, isn't this confirmed e-mail a bit redundant? --Merzul 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would be that hard to create a bot that does 500 low-key edits, i.e. a vandal, and I do not see the downside of the confirmed e-mail. —Centrx→talk • 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirming an email takes hardly any work at all, whether done by a human or a bot. It's a silly requirement that is not related to editing. --- RockMFR 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were required to be unique e-mail addresses, then it would require non-trivial work. What disadvantage is there in requiring confirmed e-mail anyway? —Centrx→talk • 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, don't start with that kind of logic :) It doesn't matter what disadvantages there are, if any. What advantages are there? --- RockMFR 19:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes it harder to make automated spell checker accounts, though I doubt many vandals would try that...but still. Voice-of-All 19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The logic is: It does make it harder, and there are no disadvantages. —Centrx→talk • 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a rather radical idea, let's drop this auto-promotion completely. I assume that most people find at least one admin that they like within 2 months. The admins here are sufficiently diverse that even people who are in serious dispute with some admins still typically find some admins that they get along with. Hence, it shouldn't be too difficult to get these rights. And if a user can't find a single admin willing to grant them, then I doubt that person is ready for this responsibility. --Merzul 09:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're assuming that editors know about admins and go to the trouble of wading through fellow editor's User pages to find where they mention they are admins. Edits by admins are the same as those of other editors, unless they somehow indicate an action is being done under the authority of the King. (SEWilco 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  What's the ratio of Users to Admins, and thus the average number of users which each admin is to have in their flock? (SEWilco 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why email confirmed?

message: So, who grants the privileges? Has an interface for that been written? Or will we somehow have to hack into Special:Userrights to be able to set the bits? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Editor" rights can be granted by sysops, "Reviewer" rights can be granted by bureaucrats. This is done though the Special:Makevalidate interface. Editor rights are also set up to be granted automatically to users, but the specific details of this for the enwiki implementation have not been worked out. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, both sysops and bureaucrats would access the Special:Makevalidate page? As for the automatic editor rights, how about creating a new permission, and have it be processed similar to autoconfirmed, just with a different variable ($wgEditorAge instead of $wgAutoconfirmAge, or something like that)? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are referring to $wgFlaggedRevsAutopromote (check the extension page on Mediawiki for all the variables), which can be based on days, edits, and confirmed email. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask amidaniel to make you a sysop on his testwiki (link at the top of the page), which has the extension installed. Then you can try it out yourself. Prodego talk 03:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have the extension installed on my own test wiki (and I already sent a patch to VoiceOfAll), so that's not really the problem. I'm asking more about the things that will have to be added to the site configuration, as well as how things like the "featured" sub-tag can be modified or added. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose the question then becomes whether we should be adding a new user level for every extension that requires a certain number of edits, or has some other requirement. What will this be, super-auto-confirmed? And what if another extension needs something close, but not exactly the smae? Obviously we should try to keep these extensions as self contained as possible, so I doubt we need to add another automatic level. Prodego talk 01:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who does it?

message: It appears the extension also has an option to tag revisions as simply "patrolled", meaning they aren't vandalised, although may still be unstable. Why isn't this included in the proposed policy? It seems to be the most useful feature. People are talking about this policy being all about vandalism, but the "stable" tag isn't designed to mark un-vandalised revisions, it's designed for actually stable revisions. There is a big difference between an un-vandalised page and a stable page. --Tango 14:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's an old feature of MediaWiki that's disabled here for whatever reason. -Amarkov moo! 14:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, we should discuss turning that feature back on before worrying about adding new features. It seems people are wanted to use stable versions to do the job of patrolled revisions, which seems pointless when we have patrolled revisions available to do exactly that job. --Tango 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Patrolled edits flag recent changes, so RC patrollers know what to check. Once the edit is old enough (out of RC), the flag falls of the RC entry. It is strictly to aid for RC patrol, not to flag pages in any way. It was disabled because only sysops could mark things as patrol, so RC was flooded with unpatrolled edits with ! marks at Special:Recentchanges, making it useless. The extension just gives Editors patrol rights if rcpatrol is enabled. With Editors being a much larger user base, perhaps it may become feasible again. Voice-of-All 14:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that using patrolled status to determine what revision to show automatically with a link to the stable version would be the best option. Many people have pointed out that there are far too many articles for us to go through a mark stable versions of all of them, however with patrolled edits it would be quite easy to ensure that a recent non-vandalism edit of almost every article is marked (since any edit by an editor would be automatically marked as patrolled, it would require very little actual work) and thus we can avoid showing vandalism to the public, which is the apparent aim. Only showing stable versions to the public is an unachievable goal at this point, so let's set our targets a little lower. --Tango 14:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by "using patrolled status to determine what revision to show". Patrolled edits do not work in a way that would allow for that. The software doesn't really work that way at all. Voice-of-All 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about simply using a more modest name instead of "stable". I've been thinking in terms of "sighted", "patrolled", and sorry for being a geek but perhaps "beta", so that we under-promise and over-deliver, and people don't think that by stable we actually mean it is actually going to be stable in any way ;) --Merzul 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MediaWiki: messages can just be customized. Voice-of-All 16:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Frankly, and I do not mean to be rude, the devotion of any time to a debate about such trivial semantics is a complete and utter waste. "Stable" is a term that's been used for quite some time in reference to this, and while it may not perfect, people know what is meant. "Patrolled" is ambiguous due to the MediaWiki patrolled edits feature, and "sighted" is ambiguous as it is also a quality-rating in the FlaggedRevs extension. I don't see any reason to even discuss changing it at this point, but if it's to change, let's save it for a day when we have free time to spare. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, people aren't talking about using this for marking stable version, they are talking about using it for marking unvandalised versions - there is a big difference between the two. "Stable" should be used to describe stable version - that is, version which are not disputed and are not undergoing major changes. We need another word to describe edits which have been checked for vandalism - "patrolled" seems best to me. If the patrolled edits code that exists doesn't do what we want, it can always be changed, or replaced. How about simply adding a "patrolled" tag to this extension, in addition to the "stable" and "quality" tags? Make it so all edits by "editors" are automatically tagged as patrolled, give edits that haven't been tagged as patrolled the red exclamation mark in RC (and turn off the existing patrolled edits code), and only show patrolled edits to anon users. We can then take our time with determining stable articles. --Tango 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Daniel, a word can paint a thousand pictures. If someone tags an article as "stable", and this happened to contain a serious BLP violation, then people will accuse us of having supported the libel. What we call "quality" is better described as "stable", and what we call "stable" is more like just "vandalism free". It is important for the public perception that people don't get the wrong impression I think... --Merzul 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, again, these messages can be changed on the Wiki interface, via the MediaWiki namespace. E.g., you can change "quality" for "assessment", and "stable" for "unvandalized" or anything else without any problems. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patrolled

message: Do we have to have pages that haven't been reviewed, displaying  that they haven't been reviewed? --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I tried to click on the link provided, a window popped up prompting me to enter a username and password, though I've never created one at the German wikimedia site so I don't see how I'm supposed to see it...--十 八 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the old link to AmiDaniel's site. Voice-of-All 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the link to show what I meant. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice

message: The reason I dislike the word "stable versions" is because I think it might be painting the wrong picture in people's minds. I think the Citizendium comparisons are entirely due to this misconception. With a stable version, you branch off from the trunk, and keep a separate stable release tree.
Some of the linked essays, e.g. Wikipedia:Static version, is about such a model, but Flagged Revisions seems to maintains a completely linear non-forking model. I think this is much better, and I would maybe even oppose the idea as described in that essay, especially the statement "The stable version could be maintained by a selected subset of Wikipedia editors". It sounds like Badagnani's worst nightmare.
For many people this proposal might be their first introduction to this Flagged Revision idea, or perhaps re-introduction since they opposed WP:STABLE, and first impressions are important. The system could later use the terms "stable" and "quality" but for this proposal now, I will remove any reference to the word stable. --Merzul 03:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...well the UI still uses 'stable', but it can all just be overridden with MediaWiki: messages, so I guess that's not a problem. Voice-of-All 04:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be good to note that we have the option of what to call this flag. I can see how calling it "stable" can give the wrong / undesired image. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just calling it a "vandalism-free" version? That doesn't really paint any picture that it's factually accurate, neutral, etc., just that it hasn't been replaced with a full-screen picture of a penis or "jon was here lololol". No rigorous review is necessary to say that a given edit wasn't blatant vandalism, RC patrol does that all day long and generally in seconds. We can then save the more rigorous review for the revisions marked as "stable" or "quality". (I wouldn't be opposed to using both of those categories in addition. "Vandalism-free" just means the version hasn't been vandalized, "stable" means that it's had its facts checked against references, has references cited for all major facts, and is relatively NPOV, and "quality" would be the version of an article which has been passed by the full, rigorous FA process.) However, just the two classifications ("vandalism-free" and "quality") would work too, but it might be nice to have some type of intermediate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice photo! :) So this is now being presented as a kind of "WikiProject Wikipedia" (i.e. a WikiProject for monitoring the entirety of Wikipedia, in an exclusive/exclusionist manner)? I do find the comments above to be quite unfriendly toward Wikipedia users whom the editors find to somehow ignorant of the "true" goals and meaning of WP. That's a dangerous POV, because it also allows the exclusion of long-time editors who may believe differently. Badagnani 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, it gives a connotation that it has been peer reviewed. I'd still like "assessed" more, because it doesn't indicate anything but that someone looked at it and said "it looks ok". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? It sounded rather ominous to me. -- Ned Scott 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, not ominous.. what's the word I'm looking for.. -- Ned Scott 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, yes, I didn't think of peer reviews--I still don't think the term would be particularly ambiguous, but I could see how this may cause some confusion. "Assessed" works by me--let me go grab a thesaurus ... :D. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I like that one. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it too. It seems a bit wordy, though. How about the display version? -- Avenue 10:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Constable-approved version" might work too. Badagnani 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) AmiDaniel, If the plan is still to do fleeting checks for blatant vandalism, then all of those are problematic (at least in my view). They all imply some kind of accuracy or some kind of formal, reliable review process that simply does not exist. Thus, they are all misleading to a certain extent. We should not apply such confidence-inspiring words to versions which have seen at most five minutes of attention from one editor. Seraphimblade's suggestion of "vandalism free" appeals to me, but we need to keep in mind that not all vandalism takes the form of "##@$WIKIPEDA SUKZ!! LOLZ#*U#" A lot of vandalism is much more subtle (e.g., changing a single number of adding/removing one word to change the entire meaning of a sentence). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I absolutely agree with this. I would oppose the idea that some clueless member of some WikiProject Wikipedia would just flag revision without consulting the regular contributors. This is why I would like to see this integrated with our FA process, and in cases where there are active subject-specific WikiProjects with well-established A-class reviews. The role of an editorial team would be to facilitate the process, not have the right to arbitrarily pick a revision based on their own POV. The point is that when going through a FAC, the article has received approval from both sides of a conflict as well as outside commentators, fact-checking and copy-editing people, surely a great achievement. We should re-consider how articles develop from there. As far as I understand, Black Falcon support this idea, but doesn't like using this system for light-weight reviews, or what we have called "vandalism and BLP concerns". --Merzul 11:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The word 'stable'

message: Alright, I went and grabbed a thesaurus. Let's try some of these on for size:
* Evaluated version
* Established version
* Inspected version
* Reliable version
* Trustworthy version
* Approved version
* Acceptable version
* Ample version
* Satisfactory version
* Continent version
* Selected version
Anyone like any of those? AmiDaniel (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Constable-approved version" might work too. Badagnani 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) AmiDaniel, If the plan is still to do fleeting checks for blatant vandalism, then all of those are problematic (at least in my view). They all imply some kind of accuracy or some kind of formal, reliable review process that simply does not exist. Thus, they are all misleading to a certain extent. We should not apply such confidence-inspiring words to versions which have seen at most five minutes of attention from one editor. Seraphimblade's suggestion of "vandalism free" appeals to me, but we need to keep in mind that not all vandalism takes the form of "##@$WIKIPEDA SUKZ!! LOLZ#*U#" A lot of vandalism is much more subtle (e.g., changing a single number of adding/removing one word to change the entire meaning of a sentence). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I absolutely agree with this. I would oppose the idea that some clueless member of some WikiProject Wikipedia would just flag revision without consulting the regular contributors. This is why I would like to see this integrated with our FA process, and in cases where there are active subject-specific WikiProjects with well-established A-class reviews. The role of an editorial team would be to facilitate the process, not have the right to arbitrarily pick a revision based on their own POV. The point is that when going through a FAC, the article has received approval from both sides of a conflict as well as outside commentators, fact-checking and copy-editing people, surely a great achievement. We should re-consider how articles develop from there. As far as I understand, Black Falcon support this idea, but doesn't like using this system for light-weight reviews, or what we have called "vandalism and BLP concerns". --Merzul 11:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A few other options