Episode 44: Stable Perversions
The News Roundtable, with panelists: Andrew Lih (Fuzheado), Andrew Phillips (Tawker), Liam Wyatt (Witty Lama), Privatemusings.
1:50 Donations from Sloan and Khosla
12:39 Staffing
15:21 Statistics
19:58 FlaggedRevs
39:03 Single User Login
40:35 Wikinews update - interview w/Mike Halterman
53:15 Wikimania 2009 - Buenos Aires
58:30 Top 100
- Major Boobage
- Fitna
- D.B. Cooper
Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (1246)
Other Media: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (626)
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Your idea that reviewer status should be given to all editors defeats the entire purpose of the reviewing system. How would a completely open reviewing system insure that certain Wikipedia content is actually reliable? Articles marked as reviewed would have no more editorial safeguards than the articles we have now. You would just have to trust whoever was the last person to have reviewed the article (which could easily be a vandal). It would basically just give vandals a new way of committing vandalism. Stop worshipping the “anyone can edit” mantra and think seriously about how we can use these tools to make Wikipedia a reliable resource.
Comment by kaldari — April 3, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Also, “Dutch” and “Danish” do not refer to the same country. Dutch is the Netherlands. Danish is Denmark. Fitna and Jyllands-Posten are not from the same country.
Comment by kaldari — April 3, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Relevant links…
Animated Wikipedia growth on Infodisiac: http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/Wikistats/Animation.html
Henrik’s tool: http://stats.grok.se/
Stable versions test wiki: http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
This Flagged Revisions discussion would have been greatly improved if everyone was familiar with the actual proposals on en-wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Sighted_versions
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Quality_versions
There are separate proposals for “sighted versions” and “quality versions”. Marking “sighted versions”, which just means free of vandalism and is essentially a more open replacement for semi-protection (although the requirement for sighter status is currently proposed as somewhat higher than autoconfirmation) is proposed as the first step.
The more radical change is to actually certify versions according to quality, which will require a more serious introduction of a ‘higher’ form of editor.
The test wiki doesn’t reflect the en-wiki proposals as they currently stand.
Comment by Sage (User:Ragesoss) — April 4, 2008 @ 1:10 am
Sage, thanks for the pointers and I wonder why those links are not presented on the front page of http://en.labs.wikimedia.org. Seems like a major oversight.
Comment by Andrew Lih — April 4, 2008 @ 8:41 am
I added them to the test wiki front page. Hopefully someone with reviewer rights will approve my edit sometime soon.
Comment by Sage (User:Ragesoss) — April 5, 2008 @ 12:43 am
Oops… commented to soon. The system is working; my constructive anonymous edit got approved.
Comment by Sage (User:Ragesoss) — April 5, 2008 @ 12:44 am
Hello, I would like to hear in WW more about the Wikipedia language versions, what happens in e.g. the Japanese or the Finnish Wikipedia.
en:User:Ziko-en
Comment by User:Ziko-en — April 5, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
Hi,
if you need such a great amount of CPU power to do the statistics for the wikipedia, why don´t you split the CPU Power an a lot aff computers, like the SETI project. Distributet computing is the name for it. That would be a cheap way to get anough CPU power
Comment by Jan — April 8, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
@Jan
One of the problems I could see w/ a distributed structure is the need for a box in any case to distribute the chunks of the 130GB or so dump and control the whole thing.
That, and we’d need a client. Anyone care to write one?
Comment by Tawker — April 8, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Yes you need a client and a distribution way. But as at SETI, the hole Data is cut in peaces and is distrubuted to the clients.
I think to find someone or a group of people who would set something like this up, you have to post this idea on differnt sides (wikipedia statistics?) and other blogs.
Comment by Jan — April 9, 2008 @ 7:57 am