| Revision as of 16:17, 15 December 2008 editRjd0060 (talk | contribs)33,499 edits →RfC on implementation: further← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:08, 10 December 2014 edit undoCenarium (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,810 edits archiving, redirect to main talk | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{archive box|auto=long}} | |||
| ==Related discussions== | |||
| *'''] and its archives''' contain the full history of FlaggedRevisions development on en.wiki | |||
| *''']''' contains previous discussion on this specific proposal | |||
| ==RfC on implementation== | |||
| {{RFCpolicy| section=RfC on implementation !! reason=Discussion of a proposed ] implementation !! time= 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC) }} | |||
| The proposal on the attached project page represents the culmination of a very lengthy discussion and development process for implementing ] on en.wiki. A clear consensus is required to present to the developers to have the extension installed. Ultimately that consensus will need to take the form of a straw poll, however we are ''not'' yet at that stage. This RfC ''initially'' seeks external input on the proposal, the opinions, comments and suggestions of editors not already involved with the development process. As such, please (for now) avoid simple expressions of "support" and "oppose" and instead present arguments and comments specifically connected ''to this proposal''. <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| <!--PLEASE ADD COMMENTS BELOW--> | |||
| :I think this kind of trial is a good idea, since without it, we'll never have the evidence for an informed discussion of the implementation of the extension and its effect on Misplaced Pages. That said, I think that the current proposal does not say enough about how limited the trial will be. I may well have read it incorrectly, but it seems as if surveyors will be able to mark pages flagged indiscriminately suring the trial. Is this the intention, or is there meant to be some limitation in scope? ] (]) 11:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Technically they can mark any page in the main space or portal space. However their actions, of course, will be limited by the relevant policies by the mandate that the community will give them. One of the proposed trials is to enable Flagged Revisions over featured articles and portals (see ). This proposal is just a technical framework: specific trials should be discussed separately. ] (]) 12:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sounds fine then - I can't see anything wrong with the proposal as it stands. ] (]) 12:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm looking at the broader scope here and a "trial" will likely lead to a full implementation that I don't believe we would be able to handle. Some of the smaller wikis have huge backlogs of revisions waiting to be sighted. I'd very much like for this to be able to work but I don't feel it will, thus I '''oppose''' ''any'' implementation of Flagged revisions at this time, whether it be limited implementation as this proposal suggests or otherwise. - ] (]) 15:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That is indeed a perennial objection to the concept of FlaggedRevisions, but it is based on assumptions: while those assumptions are sensible, and ''may'' apply to en.wiki, you simply cannot say so with certainty until we have tried. The "don't give an inch or they'll take a mile" stance is not really applicable here because taking the second inch (having the implementation extended across the whole wiki) is no easier than taking the first (having FlaggedRevs installed at all). Both require developer intervention and so cannot occur without consensus. So I don't think you're being fair to say that "a trial will likely lead to a full implementation" as if that were a unequivocally bad thing. The trial will lead to an implementation only if we conclude that that is the right thing to do. If, as you believe, we are unable to maintain FlaggedRevs on en.wiki, then it will be impossible for us to attain consensus for its deployment. Having had a trial period only puts us in a better position to make that choice, it does not encourage one or other outcome. <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 15:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::In my opinion, it would be a bad thing actually, and for the reasons I already specified. I've seen enough evidence to reasonably conclude that we would have unmanagable backlogs and don't like the idea of gambling with it. Of course this is only an assumption, just as your optimism is an assumption (and everybody who has an opinion one way or another is assuming). Have you researched/been following the other wikis that have implemented it as I have? - ] (]) 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I certainly have, and I agree that it is a serious concern, such that I would probably have opposed most of the wider implementations that have been proposed previously without evidence to the contrary. I maintain that we cannot be ''certain'' either way without such evidence. But the point at which we need to make the ultimate decision "do we think we can handle a full FlaggedRevisions deployment?" is ''not being made'' with this proposal; with this system it will be delayed until we have gathered enough evidence to say whether it is viable. When that day comes, we'll be in a much better position than we are now to answer that question correctly. Without this trial implementation, however, we will continue to be entirely in the dark as to the true answer, and so any other implementation would be a complete leap of faith. If, as you believe, ''any'' full implementation will be a failure, we will be able to see that from the trials. So if you are correct, those trials will ''strengthen'' your position, not weaken it. There is no "gamble" as you claim, because this implementation is not at 'risk' of turning into a full deployment. You are right about one thing: everybody who has an opinion ''is'' assuming things. Why don't we take the opportunity to replace those assumptions with facts? <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 16:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is perfectly reasonable to look at other wikis who have implemented this to see what issues they have faced. I've done so and made my opinion here and nothing at this point is really going to change my opinion unless they say that the 10,000++ revision backlog was a software glitch. I'm comfortable with the amount of "research" I've done on this and comfortable with the conclusions I've drawn. But, there are other people here :-). - ] (]) 16:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == New userrights group == | |||
| A trial run limited on certain articles sounds interesting. I hope some people have some more-or-less scientific ideas how to run such a trial. | |||
| I don't quite understand why we need a new userright group for this. Essentially, if we want to have a trial run, we need to figure out a way to select a good sample of pages where flagged revisions should be tried, and keep that sample for a period of time. The actual switching of the "flagged revision" flag on a page does not seem to need "surveyor" oversight, and would be more efficiently done by a bot. | |||
| In other words, I welcome having people who think about pages that should be included and monitor those (and scientifically evaluate the results later), but don't see why they should add or remove the flagging flag while the trial runs. Not having to add an extra usergroup has the advantage that we won't have to argue who gets that userright and why. ] (]) 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You misunderstand the purpose of the flag. Yes, the setting and unsetting of pages could be most efficiently done by a bot, and indeed it probably will. In order for the bot to be able to make those changes, it will need the <tt>'surveyor'</tt> user right! Surveyors are different only in that they have the ''technical ability'' to make the changes; which pages they change and for how long will be governed by the community and relevant policy. The situation is entirely analogous to bureaucrats: crats have the ''technical ability'' to change any user into an administrator, but the users who receive that treatment are selected by the community at RfA. Bureaucrats are chosen not for their ability to judge who should be made admins (because they don't do that), but because they are trusted to use that technical ability ''on behalf of the community''. In the same way surveyors wield the technical ability to implement FlaggedRevisions on behalf of the community, they would not ''themselves'' be responsible for selecting the pages. <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 15:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no objection if the group contains only specialized bots (or if the flagging is done by a MediaWiki pseudobot, which I guess would be more of a hack, but a possible implementation). I just want that the oversight of the process is by the community, not by a group of people wearing a certain hat. ] (]) 16:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:08, 10 December 2014
Redirect to: