Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions/Archive 5

Will editors marking versions incur any additional liability? I'm especially thinking of controversial material about living people. If this has already been hashed out, just point me to the discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean legal liability? I can't see why they would. Of course, you shouldn't sight anything which has controversial (unsourced) material about living people. --Tango 21:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL. In the U.S., lawyers will go after anything with money that moves if they think they can make a case, and will use anything they think will persuade a jury. I suspect many editors don't have significant money within reach of the U.S. courts, but I know some who do. I make no predictions about what cases will arise, what lawyers will offer as evidence, what judges will admit as evidence, etc... But I can see arguments saying "X endorsed this content, in endorsing it made it visible to the public, and thus has editorial responsibility for the content." So I expect it will increase legal risks for editors within the reach of U.S. courts, and probably also for editors in other jurisdictions. GRBerry 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have project-wide disclaimers linked to at the bottom of every page. This obviously will not deter the sharks at the door, but they are something. Girolamo Savonarola 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Person X" signs in with a nom-de-plume and uses public access terminals (libraries, internet cafes etc) and makes a statement that is slightly controversial. #How# can the originator be legally dealt with?

The article/proposa is confusing - will only some articles be covered, vandalised earlier versions be blocked etc? How will a good article about a living person be dealt with? Pages which need much improvement. "Very technical" pages which need an expert to assess them?

There is an argument for the Wiki equivalent of kitemarking of articles which reach a certain minimum standard - but a framework has to be developed first that does not imply a two-tier Wikipedia - and probably a serious reduction in the cleanup, expansion and other work required lists.

(Can someone do an archive on this talk page - "estensive multiple pov talk pages imply woolliness of thinking on several fronts".) Jackiespeel 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only got to know (or realise the importance of) this flagged revision extension of MediaWiki and its suggested implementation on Wikipedia when I read Ben Yates' entry and all related links on Wikimedia Planet yesterday.

Immediately I know this is the most important change to Wikipedia since its birth, and is going to REVOLUTIONISE Wikipedia, a (if not the) powerhouse of the edit-this-page direct-user-contribution culture - we are facing a fundamental change to how users' contributions will be treated, according to the user status instead of the quality or reasoning of the contribution.

Before, the software (MediaWiki) either accepts the contribution of a user and immediately commits it, or do not accept contribution (protected pages) at all. This gives an impression of openness, transparency and simplicity. Users feel trusted and in control. Their contribution will only be removed (or hidden from current revision) if their fellow equal Wikipedians reasonably challenge its quality. That's what it means: "Wikipedia represents a belief in the supremacy of reason".

This extension changes all these by treating all users as untrustworthy by default, and hides their initial contributions from public (non-Wikipedian) view (or on a separate, "unsighted" page) until they are "sighted". Before the contribution get "sighted", the user feels excluded, uncertain (about when the "sighting" will happen, and its outcome) and helpless (to ask who to "sight" his/her contribution).

This is done in the name of improving Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Various policies and essays have repeatedly stated that our freedoms can be limited when they go against improving the encyclopedic side of Wikipedia. What Wikipedia is not and protection policies are good examples of limiting freedoms.

But Wikipedia is different, very different from other encyclopedias. It is unique, not because of its quality, but because of its openness, freedom and reason-driven. It makes it influential not merely as a treasure of knowledge, but also as a forerunner of the open culture. It seems that we can be the best of both worlds, until now...

Freedom or quality? Time to choose.

I can see where the tide is heading, and given the strong influence of the developers (nobody wanna make them feel bad by rejecting an extension they created using toil and sweat) I believe it's only a matter of time before this roll out on the English Wikipedia. However, I still want to make a few suggestions here to make this extension more friendly than it seems now, and less alienating to new/potential Wikipedians.

1. Keep the "edit this page" tab/button, and merge the sighted and unsighted (i.e. current) pages

   How can this be done? Put it simply, make the unsighted changes visible without having to go to another page, but simply hide them in the current article. They can be revealed by clicking a small link (as small as the "citation needed" template) next to the original text, or reveal all by clicking a button at the top of the page. We can also add an icon (e.g. an arrow) next to a line which has new unsighted changes, clicking it will reveal them.

   In this case, the new Wikipedian will feel that his/her contributions are accepted and committed to the article, but instead of going to another page, requires only a click to reveal, so they won't feel alienated by unable to change the article.

2. Readers of Wikipedia can choose to reveal unsighted changes upon loading every article, after being told that they may see some vandalism.
3. The "sighter" (or whatever it's called) status should be easy to obtain (granted by the software automatically), like carrying out about 10-20 un-removed, considerable-length edits in the main namespace, and has not got blocked.
4. Give "sighters" the ability to give new Wikipedians they trust a "sighter" status. This encourages communication between Wikipedians. (Maybe we should even update the notification function, so instead of showing only "You received a new message", we can see the first few words of the new message too (or the whole message if it is short).
5. Make it possible to "request for a sight in an article".

Some of my other concerns:

1. Will the "Wikipedia" namespace be "flagged", and can new Wikipedians edit "Wikipedia" namespace to achieve a "sighter" status? Beware that both Wikipedia policies pages and the Sandbox are both in the "Wikipedia" namespace, and Wikipedia policies page suffer from (quite heavy) vandalism too.
2. Currently MediaWiki tries to avoid edit conflicts by storing only text changed by different users in different sections. Now here comes a problem, if a vandal vandalises one section of an article. Before he saves, a "sighter" loads another part of the article for editing. The vandal saves, then the sighter checks his version (which is free of vandalism) and "sights" his version. MediaWiki then "merges" the two edits of the vandal and the "sighter", and the result will be an article containing vandalism yet labelled "sighted"! Any ways to solve this?

This is a very long comment, but thanks for reading all this.--Computor 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-sighting will not trigger if someone already saved first. Voice-of-All 16:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestions. Number 1: a couple concerns. How will readers (who this proposal is aimed after) know what the little links do? If they don't use Wikipedia a lot, they may not even notice any change. Also, that's fine if there is only a slight change to the line, but what if someone rearranges and/or rewrites the whole article? They might click on a changes link and see a totally different paragraph or no paragraph at all. A better way to do what you seem to be hoping this will do is to automatically go the the current version after they save the changes, that way they will still see their changes. If all goes according to plan, if their changes are good, they will be sighted within a couple minutes or less.

Number 2: I don't quite understand this. Are you suggesting that on every article, readers get the option to see the current version? If so, that will already be the case. If you are suggesting that unregistered users can choose to always see the current version, I don't think that's possible as unregistered users don't have preferences settings.

Number 3: We're still deciding what criteria to use, but the rightss will almost certainly be given out automatically.

Number 4: This was determined to be a Bad Idea. Imagine a sockpuppeteer does enough good editing on his main account that he gets the rights, he can then give it to all of his sleeper accounts so that they can then appear to be trusted users and bypass the automatic requirements.

Number 5: This is a good idea. We've also been asking for (and there may already be) a special, automatically updated page of articles with revisions to sight.

Concern 1: This won't automatically be applied to every page. Many pages should not be sighted and others don't need to be sighted, which is why this will have to be done manually, this way, people who flag pages can also put them on their watchlist after flagging. Wikipedia pages can be sighted (any page can be AFAIK) obviously the sandbox won't be, as there is no need. Policies and guidelines could be sighted, that has yet to be determined.

I hope this addresses some of your concerns. Mr.Z-man 17:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful. Thanks.--Computor 17:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the claim that the vision of behind this proposal is to make Wikipedia a reliable source. The Fox News source doesn't support it specifically, nor does the Wikipedia:Pushing to validation discussion. More importantly, it seems like a misapplication of WP:RS (which the claim linked to). WP is built on RSs; it cannot itself become one.--Thomas Basboll 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The very nature of a wiki make it impossible for it to be a reliable source. Else we'd have to abandon the concept entirely. Yes, accuracy is important, but Wikipedia has no editorial oversight and no publishing date, so it cannot guarantee validity, plain and simple. Melsaran (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the phrase "credible information source" in Wikipedia:Pushing to validation. Perhaps that is what was originally meant. It remains confusing to link to WP:RS.--Thomas Basboll 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, much better. Linking to WP:RS is wrong, that can't be what they had meant. It would imply that we could use (validated) Wikipedia articles as sources for other articles, and that I think is a Very Bad Thing. --Merzul 11:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a while ago that I looked at this proposal, so apologies if I've got the wrong idea about how it will work, or if all this has been discussed before. My concern is that if there is a "good" version that the world will see, and a "work in progress" version waiting to be ratified, then there will be less incentive to fix the "work in progress" version. Given the possibly lengthy delay before anyone gets around to ratifying the latest edits, my concern is that the "work in progress" version of less-visited articles will turn into garbage. It may then not be feasible to retrieve any good edits that might be lurking in the mass of unreverted vandalism and other nonsense, and the whole of the "work in progress" version will have to be thrown away. Matt 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the majority of edits are made from people logged in (not just good edits, edit in general - this is my observation anyway), this probably shouldn't be an issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Matt has a good point here. The flagged versions are likely to draw editorial attention away from what are in fact current versions. Eventually no one will bother to look at unflagged versions. The distinctiveness of Wikipedia will then be lost and I don't think this loss will be balanced by improved quality. The reason people contribute is that the current version is visible. That's also the reason people vandalize, I know, but that's an acceptable cost.--Thomas Basboll 07:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here.--Eloquence* 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the concept behind this proposal, but from what I have seen over several years here, there is enormous resistance to changing the fundamental nature of Wikipedia. I think the Flagged version as proposed does change the nature of Wikipedia in that anonymous editors will no longer see their edits take effect immediately.

I think there is a simple modification that would realize the most of the benefits but would provoke far less argument: retain as the default behavior the present approach, where edits are generally available immediately, but add an icon or link to the page structure that shows the existence of a flagged version. If the user clicks on that icon they are shown the flagged version and can ask for a diff from the current version.

There could be different flags/tags for different levels of review. there should also be an option to display a condensed history that only shows flagged versions and any subsequent edits.

I also think the lowest level of review should focus entirely on anti-vandalism. The only requirement for the lowest flag should be that the reviewers have carefully combed the article for vandalism. They should be encouraged to fix other gross problems as well, most editors will anyway, but should avoid contentious issues at this level of review. --agr 03:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The default page display issue is probably the most contentious issue and has been discussed at great length. The talk page archives have lots on this; see for instance (random pointers): Against the whole spirit of a wiki; All registered users will see and edit the most recent version of a page; Another step back: Current version as default; Why this will encourage, not discourage, new editors.

A view I agree with is that if the sighted version were not the default (for a page using the mechanism), then sighted versions will be nearly useless. That would happen because setting "sighted" on a version would do next to nothing (only affecting a link that is essentially never used). Since "sighted" would do nothing, it will rarely be set by editors.

An alternative that may be acceptable to a wider group of wikipedians is simply to apply the sighted mechanism only to selected pages. We can start by applying it to those articles currently using semi-protection. That increases editability. Other obvious candidates exist, like featured articles.

I agree that "sighted" should focus only on anti-vandalism; the other laudible qualities that some want to have checked belong in "quality versions", not "sighted versions".

-R. S. Shaw 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there was no consensus to implement the system. The bulk of comments seemed to be of the "what is really going to happen" variety. There were also folks dead set against it, but very few to my recollection. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Saying the proposal has been rejected seems premature, especially with the {{info}} tag saying that this proposal is in its early stages. Is there any objection to removing the {{rejected}} tag? -- Avenue (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's somewhat nonsensical to say that a proposal has been rejected if it has never been discussed by the community (as it has never been announced as finished). One could set up a new draft with the same content, but it would be easier just to remove the "rejected" tag. By the way, why does one user decide that this is "rejected"? --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that this system was going to go through no matter what; all this discussion has merely been to clarify what is going to happen. Unless Wikimedia has changed thier minds, this will go through.--十八 09:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my understanding is that while the features will be built, they won't be activated for any wikipedia project that doesn't want them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC) I boldly "un-rejected" the proposal. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "un-rejecting"! I think much of the discussion is taking place elsewhere (such as here, here and here, so it's not surprising things are quiet here. Also, we shouldn't worry about details until the technical side is complete and we can see what we have. Walkerma (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Until the technical side is ready, we really need to hold off on if or how we are going to implement it. The earlier discussion here had lots of ideas to be worked into the technical end, I don't know how that's going. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things have gotten a bit quite all around. I'm about ready to move the software into it's beta phase, so I'm trying to see if I can get Tim to look over it again. We'd like to have it on testwikipedia sometime, which I'd like to do soon. I expect things to speed up after that. Voice-of-All 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is up on test.wikipedia. Voice-of-All 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object to implementation of this feature, and even more strongly to the imputation that there is no opposition to it. As evidenced by the discussion archives, the notices of this discussion were regularly removed, in shameful manner, within minutes (accompanied by extremely rude, un-Wikipedian edit summaries by one of the editors apparently in greatest support of this proposed feature--apparently in an attempt to keep the wider WP community from knowing about it), then this discussion was apparently moved elsewhere. This unnecessary and un-Wikipedian feature, which will bring our project closer to the M.O. of Citizendium is unwanted by the wider Wikipedia community. Badagnani (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From our article about Citizendium:

    The project aims to improve on the Wikipedia model by requiring all contributors to use their real names, by strictly moderating the project for unprofessional behaviors, and by providing what it calls "gentle expert oversight" of everyday contributors. A main feature of the project is its "approved articles", which have each undergone a form of peer-review by credentialed topic-experts and are closed to real-time editing.

  • Is this software feature going to require us to use our real names? Will it require us to submit to the will of experts? And when did we appoint someone to speak for the community in general? Mr.Z-man 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know were anyone said there was no opposition? My observation was that most of the commenters wanted to see what was available before they made a final decision. That said, when it is ready for evaluation, I hope there is a robust discusion of exactly what we are going to do.

I don't see anywhere where anything like what Citizendium is doing is being set up here. We are looking at a new way to combat vandalism, POV agendas, BLP problems, and possibly allow for editing of protected pages by non-admins. If 90% of active regulars users are able to promote an edit to "sighted", how is that like the gentle over sight of papa at citizendium? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at vandalism stats for all kinds of random pages as well as high profile pages. It seems to me that many obscure pages would be best left with the current revision shown by default. The % time vandalized is just too low. On the other hand, high-traffic pages and ones that get trolled can be messed up 5-10%+ of the time (which is pretty crappy). Maybe the stable version should not by the default view revision for each page, but admins should set it that way as the vandalism goes up and in the place of semi-protection. Voice-of-All 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an excellent idea. I've seen some pages which aren't high profile, but keep getting vandalised for some reason (Scott Joplin comes to mind, but it's been a while since I've watched that). As it'd be limited to admins, perhaps a way for us normals (a page or template like with other issues) to request it if the vandalism gets to be a pain... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this compromise. I know that many folks don't like the reviewed version to be the default, but this might be a good way to handle the challenging pages, while allowing more editing of some of them than is currently allowed via semi or full protection for long periods. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On some level, this makes some sense, but remember to think of it as an interface issue. Users should not be shown the current version some times and the stable version other times for no reason they can discern. I suppose that could be addressed with a banner not unlike the current protection ones, though that is very self-referential and ugly.--Father Goose (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point is on pages where the system wasn't in place it would be as it is now, so that wouldn't be an issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what he was saying was that users may wonder why the site selects the stable version sometimes and the current one other times. Good interface messages would be nice. I suppose a good tag in the place of semi-protection could be in order. Voice-of-All 22:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, before we can make this decision properly, we need do run a trial (without any pages showing old revisions by default, just in case everything goes horribly wrong) and see how long it takes for revisions to get sighted. If our RC patrollers are able to sight or revert every edit within a minute or two (which I think is quite possible if we can use the flags to minimise wasted time where two people check the same edit), then there is really no downside in anon users seeing only flagged versions, and they might as well be default on all pages and we can (all but) stop readers ever seeing vandalised pages. If, for some reason, it takes longer than that, then this idea may have merit. --Tango (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Starling has said the software is ready for release. Improvements can be made as users work with it and give input. Voice-of-All 01:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern about sighted versions is how long an User needs to wait before someone sights the page after they make an edit. I would like to know if the technology would allow a page to be automatically unsighted after an amount of time after the page has been edited and remained unsighted. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interesting question. We could evaluate that by checking how long it takes for new pages to be checked in the new page patrol feature. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that, as the only real use of new page patrol is so admins know what articles to check for speedy deletion or slapping a stub tag on. I don't really feel much motivation to do that, as it doesn't really help our readers. Voice-of-All 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, i was just thinking as the folks doing most of the patrolling are also going to be the ones doing at least some of the sighting (it seems to me). when I looked just briefly, it looked like of the 50 articles created between 20:32 and 21:08 on 1/23 15 out of 50 had been patrolled at 21:08. looking back at the last 50 patrolled articles it took just about 1:05 hrs for the fifty to be patrolled. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really has to do with recent change patrol not new page patrol. What I want to be able to say is "Your edits will be reviewed for quality or publicly displayed in [an about of time]." If the edit is not reviewed and either sighted or reverted in that amount of time, then the page would be unsighted and the edit publicly displayed. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 21:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please comment on the current situation of the implementation of this extension (on this Wiki)? I've just come across this page, and so have only this to go on. A brief update would be greatly appreciated —αlεx•mullεr 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is ready to be deployed, but brion is tied up with work and meetings now. Voice-of-All 19:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) —αlεx•mullεr 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a further update on when this extension will be enabled? - Borofkin (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two test wikis with imported DB data/images for en. and de. wikibooks are up now. Voice-of-All 18:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The test wiki has been up for a while. Is there any word on when it will be enabled on en.wp? - Borofkin (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of All, (or actually anyone associated with coding the "sighted tag"): the font size of the tag needs to be increased slightly. At least with Firefox 2, the rendering of the font is just fuzzy enough that users can't read it without increasing the size. This pic shows what I'm talking about. Have fun, —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had never done that before, but the last days I spent several hours on recent changes patrol. Now, I am more convinced than ever that Wikipedia desperately needs the "sighted versions" feature.

Pages get vandalized on a per-second basis, sometimes quite obvious and clumsy, sometimes more subtle. But whether we catch the vandalism seems to be more a matter of chance. While the very evident cases (page blanking etc.) reliably get caught by bots, I've seen many others slip through, just because no one happened to check them. Without any kind of "checklist" feature, who knows which changes would need a review? Once they've left the recent changes list, no one can tell. We don't even have a statistics that tells us how many patrollers would be needed. Plus, much effort is wasted because people are working independently on the same change. In short: We're spending a lot of effort, but we're not doing it efficiently, and we can't even tell whether it's successful.

The sooner we get "sighted versions", the better, --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. The Wikipedia community has to recognize that adolescents love to casually vandalize things, and that Wikipedia is a prime candidate for them since it is frequently in front of them and associated with boring things like schoolwork. The percentage of vandalism (and reverts thereof) showing up for my watched pages continues to grow, perhaps being about 80% now. Sighted versions was needed two years ago and can't arrive soon enough. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word. I have over 1,000 pages on my watchlist, primarily for watching out for vandalism. Thing is, I don't like having stuff cluttering up the watchlist - so when a legitimate edit is made, I unwatch. If I could instead just "approve" of the new diff and get the page out of my watchlist without having to unwatch it, I'd happily maintain a watch over 10,000 pages instead. Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions can go to hell, this is the real deal! Jobjörn (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can't happen soon enough, it will be a huge step forwards in both the quality and reliability of the encyclopedia, as well as saving the massive waste of effort that is generated by our vandalism problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the "rollout" section per WP:BOLD. Comments are welcome. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. It just seems that the 2-4 weeks of testing are over and no news about what they plan on doing with it. gren グレン 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also curious where we stand on the rollout at this time. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. Additionally, might I suggest that Featured Articles also be included in the roll out (either before or after BLP's)? Although not as damaging as BLP pages, vandalism on FA pages is particularly bad since they are featured as "the best of Wikipedia." While I'd expect most FA articles are monitored pretty well so that obvious vandalism doesn't last long, subtle vandalism on FA articles has the opportunity to damage the project and go unnoticed for quite some time.—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the rollout of this unwanted and unnecessary feature. Badagnani (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote. If you don't have something constructive to add, there's no need to comment. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh, I'd let the sophistic rhetoric go without response. It will come either way. Voice-of-All 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Evolution/draft article has been implemented for a couple of weeks now. I wonder, if this proposals would allow the editors there to stop that manual implementation and use some form of flagging.

Assume this proposals is implemented as it currently stands, would that help the editors on evolution?

Personally, I think for this to work on that page, the auto-granting of reviewer rights may have to be dropped. It would be more useful to use this feature on fewer pages, but in a way that it actually solves the real problems. I will ask editors of evolution to comment here, because they are having the kind of problem that flagging really must solve. So if they suspect that the vandal they are facing is capable of abusing auto-granting, then I suggest we get rid of auto-granting. --Merzul (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One should point out that Sighted Versions is more intended to help with run-off-the-mill IP vandalism ("Xyz is GAY!"), which unfortunately occurs frequently and across many pages in Wikipedia. Experience shows that semi-protection stops most of this vandalism, and auto-granting reviewer rights is even stronger than that. For some high-profile articles that are often subject to edit-warring (like Evolution), other measures might be more appropriate. Perhaps Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions is what you are looking for. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I over-reacted. I mostly agree with you. But there is a real situation on Wikipedia, where people really need flagging. In fact, they are manually simulating this feature. And we have here two proposals on how to use flagging, none of which I fear would adequately addresses their problem, or would it? Maybe there is a way we could make it address their problem? --Merzul (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people involved in this experiment, I think that we need to have the option of moving the level of flagging on a case-by-case basis, as a lightweight form of article protection. Giving admins the option in some cases of moving the displayed version from that produced by auto-confirmed editors to a smaller set of editors would allow anybody to edit the page, but prevent sockpuppet abuse very effectively. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that is already in the software. Voice-of-All 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I look forward to using it. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to see whether I got it correctly:

On a case-by-case basis, the right to mark a particular page as "sighted" can be restricted to the group of administrators. This change of rights (and its reversal) can be implemented by any administrator.

Is that correct? Should we add it to the proposal? It seems quite useful indeed. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the version shown by default (stable vs. current) can be set by admins. Also, they can set whether the latest quality version or sighted version is the stable version. Voice-of-All 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. Then it doesn't change much to the proposal at this time - it's planned to show the flagged version by default anyway. --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So all that one would have to do is to give Tim Vickers (and other admins dealing with that article) the reviewer right and set evolution to show quality versions by default. Then the problem would be solved there, while the current proposal would remain as is. (As I understand, the quality versions will initially be used for OTRS anyway, so something like this was the plan anyway.) --Merzul (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this stand currently? The technology seems to exist if the Germans are using it? Inaction on this front seems to be our biggest issue as an encyclopaedia. WilyD 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were letting the Germans test it before implementing it here (where major bugs would cause more of a problem since we're so much bigger). Are the devs confident it's (relatively) bug-free? --Tango (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

At the article on evolution we have been testing what the effects of this change might be manually, by creating a full-protected main article and an unprotected draft article. Constructive edits from the draft are transferred manually to the main article by administrators.

Results

1. Vandalism - We have had a long-term problem with page-blanking vandalism from a large sockfarm (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join). This vandal attacked the draft article a total of 19 times, using a total of 17 different accounts and IP addresses, but these attacks are now becoming further apart and do not disrupt the article for our readers.
2. Constructive edits - 6 constructive edits transferred to the main article, including one from an IP editor who would have been unable to edit the main article before this arrangement was instituted, since it was permanently semi-protected.

Conclusions

1. Having a draft and a main article can deal effectively with even the most extreme and persistent vandals.
2. Opening drafts up to IP editors, as an alternative to semi-protection, increases the number of people who can contribute to the encyclopedia.

Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Right, but there are no section edit links. Voice-of-All 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting and informative. It's obviously not a 1:1 parallel since the edit button at the top of the actual evolution article essentially disabled and there is no notice on that page on how to edit it (i.e., would-be editors have to go through another two steps to edit the article - and then trust that the admin really will be non-biased and move the edit over), but the experiment is informative non-the-less. Thanks! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notice on how to edit the draft is in hidden text at the top of the main article, so it is the first thing you see if you click on the edit button. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the first thing you miss when you click on the edit button. Especially when it's in a greyed out view source box, rather than an edit box. It needs to be far more prominent. --Tango (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty big on my screen. First the big giant "This page is protected" box and then at the very top of the article text, it lists the instructions to any editor. And it really shouldn't matter if they have to go to the talk page to get the link. Any edit most editors are going to make should be discussed on the talk page anyway. I can assure you there aren't a lot of IP editors or new accounts that are suddenly going to do great things for that article. Let's be realistic here. Regardless, it is working. And the vandalism to the talk page underscores the importance of the protection. Baegis (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this a while back and like the idea, but I think it might be helpful to compare this month(?) long trial to (if it exists) a previous month's worth of 'normal' mode edits before this problem vandal. Specifically, I'm interested in whether the willingness of people to make constructive edits (measured crudely by number of editors) has been reduced at all by the draft. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you went back to September-December 2007 to get comparative data, since the article has been switching between semi and full protection constantly since then. Unfortunately this vandal has been active for several years, so their edits will seriously skew any simple edit count. For a global view, see this page which shows how editing has fallen off since the burst of activity when we brought this article to FA status in June 2007. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it surprising that edits drop after reaching FA? Is that a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? There is an argument that God is unchanging, because being perfect, any change would be a bad thing, hence God is unchanging. Our FA are far from perfect, but I have no reason to believe that a lesser number of even constructive edits being made to an article after having made FA is a bad thing. Why is that taken for granted? --Merzul (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can make no judgement about if the observed drop-off in edit rate after the intensive editing involved in this article's long FAC process is good or bad, but it isn't unexpected since you don't need to sustain such intensive redrafting for long. The edit rate after the FA process appears quite steady over several months, although the majority of those edits are vandalism from sockpuppet accounts and reversions of this vandalism. I'll expect the edit rate after the "stable versions" experiment to drop by about 3/4, since this vandalism is no longer a problem. The important question is if the rate of useful changes is significantly altered, and we'll need better stats to answer that question. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wanted this thing to succeed but I can't see any definitive proof above that this doesn't adversely put off anon contributions. MickMacNee (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article was previously indefinitely semi-protected, getting any edits from anon contributors is a step forwards. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any method for removing the ability to flag articles from contributors who abuse it, except for a straight block? Should we have one? WilyD 11:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's possible to remove the ability to flag articles. Users can ask for the right to flag articles on this page. Every administrator can change the rights, so every admin can also remove the ability to flag articles. Davidlud (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could use the WP:RFC/USER process to determine if editors should have their surveyor privileges removed. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that this question is here "somewhere"...

So as I read the proposal, more than one version of the page in question will be marked "sighted"? Or just the most recent version?

I strongly hope it's the latter.

We've run into situations of copy-vio, where an article had to be reverted back even more than a year to a non-copyvio version.

So this would mean (shudder) removing all these "sighted" demarcations? And that's from a single article.

Would someone please clarify? - jc37 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just revert back and mark the new version (the year old version) as sighted and nobody will know about the previous embarrassment. Just like now, Merzul (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many versions can be marked as Sighted, and only the most recent is displayed when a page is set to show Sighted versions by default.--ragesoss (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that that defeats the purpose of having multiple "sighted" versions in the first place. What's to stop someone from reverting to one of the other (copy-vio) versions? If no one notices (and that's likely in this case, especially since the version reverted to was "sighted"...), then we now have a return to a copyvio, with everyone involved claiming "innocence", simply because they didn't realise. (It was a "sighted" version, after all...)

Bad idea. Once something is determined to be copyvio, by the definitions on the front page, that version should no longer be "sighted", period. Which means, if multiple versions in an edit history are allowed to be "sighted", then, as I said at top, all the versions would have to be reverted from being 'sighted".

So am I missing anything? - jc37 23:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point, but it's not a serious problem. It should be easy enough to implement a quick way to unsight multiple versions if it's required. --Tango (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, we still don't have a quick way (disregarding js) to select/deselect revisions for undeletions. So it's probably not a good idea planning for that.

It would just seem easier to just "sight" the most recent version. - jc37 00:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then what happens when someone incorrectly sights the most recent version and it's then unsighted again? The desired behaviour would be for anons to go back to viewing the previous sighted version, but with your system they would see the latest version which we know is bad, since it's been unsighted. --Tango (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. When I said: "It would just seem easier to just "sight" the most recent version." - I meant that only one version should be sighted, not necessarily the most recent edit, but the most recent "sighted" version. Does that clarify? - jc37 06:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tango's point is that when the latest sighted version was wrongly marked sighted, then (with a one-sighted-only mechanism) when the incorrectly-sighted version is reset to unsighted there will at that point be no sighted version (leading to display of the latest, perhaps vandalized, version). A reason for leaving multiple versions marked sighted is so that the previous one will resume being the default-display version if the latest one has its sighted setting removed. (Another reason is so that other editors can easily make comparisons between two of the latest few sighted versions to satisfy themselves that everything done recently is indeed as good as some other random, but somewhat experienced, editor has asserted as being the case by marking versions sighted.) -R. S. Shaw (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which means, that every version, going back to the copyvio, would need to be un-"sighted". Sorry, but I don't see the benefits of having multiple "sighted" versions. I see trouble waiting instead.

At best, this could be done like Cribbage pegging. With only 2 versions being "sighted". That way, you know where you are, and you know where you last "were". Some pages may have one, and some two, but there's really no need for more than just two. (And indeed, more than 2 could be problematic for various reasons, not just the copyvio example.) - jc37 03:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual articles can be set to ignore the sighted flags and display the most current version. So in problem cases, we can always go back to the system we have now until the problems get sorted out, if that's ever necessary.--ragesoss (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you don't know until after-the-fact... -jc37 03:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't worry about it. If people simply realize that sighted versions are pretty much just Wikipedia article versions – unreliable, etc. – then there's no problem. It isn't a big deal unless someone makes a big deal about it. This comment applies to most of the objections that have been raised to making this information available. Perhaps those who don't like the idea of sighted versions could just ignore that information and treat all versions equally? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Surveyor rights section, "Rollback rights" is listed as a right of this user group. This seems odd to me, and I hope I'm reading it incorrectly. If a user abuses the rollback function, any admin can simply remove that editor from the "rollbacker" user group. Does this mean that the editor would also have to be removed from the "surveyor" group? If this simply means the editor can essentially revert to a previous sighted revision, a better choice of terms would be nice. - auburnpilot talk 15:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that the set of people with rollback privileges and the set of people who can mark articles as "examined" should be dramatically different? (As I mentioned above, I favor using some word other than "sighted", because that doesn't mean "looked at" in English, it means "not blind". See WP:JARGON and WP:NOTLEX.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think lumping them together is foolish. The two are separate tasks and if one is abused, we shouldn't have to also remove the other. If we're lumping these together, why not also combine rollbacker, surveyor, accountcreator, and the IP block exemption group? They're unrelated. - auburnpilot talk 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that SurveyorRollbackAccountcreator should all be combined; all are trustworthy functions requiring a degree of trust from the community. IPBE, however, has an implicit threat much more serious than the others, and should be reserved carefully. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it was agreed that rollback be given out it was taught that when Sighted versions came-on rollback would automatically be given with Sighter. Zginder 2008-05-17T21:00Z (UTC)

Seems odd to me, but if that was how the process was proposed, so be it. - auburnpilot talk 14:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is suggested that discussion from this page continue at Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions. Coppertwig (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: if there are reasons for having a separate discussion here, please feel free to comment and/or revert this notice and the modification to the notice at the top of the page.)☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This documentation is out of date, rollback was one of 2 rights non-related to flaggedrevs removed after, I believe, some complaints from de.wp and Brion. Mr.Z-man 19:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed rollback based on Z-man's post. PhilKnight (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Surveyor rights==

Firstly it seems to me the correct word for this role in English is Redactor.

Secondly, Redactor status should only be granted to experienced editors participating in the Project the article is categorised in, and not liberally. Redactors should only have Flagged revision access to the Projects where they have contributed at least 10 non-stub articles, and when their contributions do not include generation of stubs.

Alienation and creating class hierarchy has nothing to do with producing good articles. It has everything to do with a consistent approach to Quality Assurance of Wikipedia content. New contributors can not be expected to have this awareness.

So,

1. Any trusted editor may be granted rights by an administrator, regardless of their edit count.

1. Any Project participating editor may be granted rights by Project coordinators based on assessment of their Project contribution.

2. The right will also be given automatically by the software to editors who meet the following conditions:

• Has an account for 30 90 days

• Has 150 1500 edits

o 30 300 edits to article namespace pages

o 10 100 article namespace pages edited

o 15 45 days of edits

• Has confirmed an e-mail account

This role is essentially that of final Quality Assurance for Wikipedia content; it should not be given out lightly. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have two different proposals. This one, sighted versions, is just intended to prevent readers from being exposed to obviously bad content, not assure overall quality. The other proposal, quality versions, is more along the lines of what you have in mind (although, as the discussions so far have gone, it would probably only be to mark and update the existing ratings of Featured Article and Good Article).--ragesoss (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think now when we almost 3mln of articles to survey we need as many surveyors as we can get. Later we could increase the requirements if needed Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Rageross for two different qualifications for two different purposes. That said, I would boost the minimum qualifications slightly to prevent spammers from quickly gaining the right, if only the account duration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing an increasing trend in editing towards stratification and removing power from the anonymous contributor. I thought most of the edits were performed by anonymous editors. Aren't we then throwing the baby out with the bathwater to make it simultaneously harder for both vandals and good-faith editors to contribute?

Solves the vandal problem, maybe, but it creates a vacuum in anonymous contribution that wasn't previously a problem. If this doesn't get implemented in a more democratic way, I sense a fork. Maybe that's exactly what is needed, though. At least I can take heart that it's all GFDL! 70.247.162.50 (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PL : No obvious vandalism. DE : No obvious vandalism. RU

Do these abbreviations mean Poland, Germany and Russia? If so, why not say so? And do they refer to the Wikipedias in those languages? If they do, why not say so? Your somewhat confused friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]