Google Blogoscoped

Forum

Wikipedia Germany to Become Moderated?  (View post)

Tadeusz Szewczyk [PersonRank 10]

Thursday, August 24, 2006
16 years ago4,468 views

The main problem with Wikipedia Germany (along outgoing links being nofollowed) is already by now the tendency of deleting new versions. Out of 3 of my contributions two get deleted immediately by someone who "has been around for a while". It most often happens in cases where politics are involved, a change in an entry about a candidate by the German (ruling) party CDU was edited instantly by a guy who (according to Google) was a CDU affiliate himself and a self proclaimed "maintainer" of this entry.

But frankly it's not only political ones. Entries that someone deems their own because they wrote them or monitored them are seldom open to real public scrutiny. I have personally no time and nerve to "discuss" for hours why my contribution should be reinstated each time.

Mathias Schindler [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

There is no Wikipedia Germany. And there will be no moderation by technical means.

Mathias

Sohil [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

I heard about this too. It's too impractical. Wikipedia will have a hard time following all the edits and making sure they are accurate.

Mathias Schindler [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

Sohi: "making sure they are accurate" is something we do since wikipedia started in 2001.

The first state of this flagging tool will only imply that the article is not vandalized. There will be no statement about the accuracy of each fact within this version of this article. This is something consistantly done in all encyclopedic projects.

Sohil [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

Yes I know, but won't this kill the spirit of Wikipedia.

See Mathias What I mean to say is ?

Lets say Mr. X made a change to an article on Frogs and Mr. Y and Mr. Z are the only ones that can review the changes.

There are a million + articles aren't they. So won't the trusted Wikipedians have a hard time keeping up with all the changes made ?

Mathias Schindler [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

I would not be surprised to see a very very low treshold in who is allowed to set a new "nonvandalized" flag (formerly known as "stable verison"), something like: "Anyone with more than 200 edits in the article namespace and more than 7 days after he created its account".

Mathias

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

(The post has been updated.)

/pd [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

huh ?? tis seems like anyone can edit but only the elite can publish!!

Mathias Schindler [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

"elite" in terms of anyone who wishes to do so? Yes, that kind of elite.

/pd [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

Mathias : Lets be blunt :)-

"anyone who wishes to do so" ?? or do you mean anyone that "you wish" to do so ??

How does a normal wiki users get the status of "elite", what does a user need to do to be elevated to such a status ? who makes the decision to elevate a particular user ?? Is there any transparency in the process ?

Explicitly rating styles of edits merely creates a despise-worth charactertic syndrome.

IMO, the wiki process is now being sanitized and this will bring about the slow demise of the spirit of the wiki. I maybe wrong and will stand corrected.

Sohil [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

/pd, I think it's automatic. I guess if you spend x amount of time or complete x amount of edits.

/pd [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

Kewl!!

So if I spend "x amount of time or complete x amount of edits." which is totally false and creates false postives that will make me an "elite"

Wonderfull concept – so much for quality information and automated services!!

Mathias Schindler [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

There is a general assumption within wikipedia called "Assume good faith". It does not mean "Get fooled all the time". If someone is messing around and shows no change of behaviour, you will end up being blocked and your edits reverted. It would be a waste of time.

Mathias

Tadeusz Szewczyk [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

"There is no Wikipedia Germany". Sounds very friendly! Is this the Wikipedia spirit?

Mathias Schindler [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

Oh, it was not meant to be in any spirit at all. It was just a statement of fact.

/pd [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

Oh well ...

"There is no Wikipedia Germany" and then therefore the "general assumption within wikipedia called "Assume good faith" – does not exist!!

Thus, this therefore becomes a "just a statement of fact" as said Mathias and which I have come to the firm conclusion it to be true and just!!

..and wtf ever happened to the 'fair and open process" methods ??

Sohil [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

/pd, This process working is honestly a long shot. What makes Wikipedia so wonderful is it stays upto date. This new process will more or less slow down this process.

Me [PersonRank 8]

16 years ago #

waiting cue -> waiting queue. ~~~~

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

Changes: cue -> queue, Wikipedia Germany -> German Wikipedia.

/pd [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

"This new process will more or less slow down this process." I'll accepted in good faith :)-

   I think the rebuttal here is very simple. Everyone is not to be 'trusted' until one earns an 'elite' status.

Sohil , I think you missed " be no moderation by technical means." . this implies that even if you spend "x amount of time or complete x amount of edits.", someone , somewhere needs to make the human decisions that User(A) will now have "publish" rights.

So who makes that decisions and what is the criteria ? that's pretty much a direct and simple question --but I am asking and still getting the run around for answers!!

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!