On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:00 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales <jwa...@wikia-inc.com> wrote: > >> On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote: >>> Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already >>> been >>> working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing >>> had >>> widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful >>> if more >> of >>> the recommendations on improving the software were incorporated, >>> thus our >>> recommendation that it not proceed so rapidly. >> >> I respect what you are saying here, very much. But I think the right >> approach is always "release early, release often". There is no >> need to >> rush, but there is also no reason not to release fixes as they are >> available, because there is no particular "ship date" with >> marketing, etc. >> > > Jimmy, here's where you're wrong. The first version was marketed as > the > solution that would allow the [[George W. Bush]] article to be > publicly > edited - it was marketed that way on and off wiki - and instead we > had 40 > hours of non-stop IP vandalism and browser crashes for almost every > reviewer. (The first problem was easily anticipated by just about > every > administrator on the site, and the second one by anyone who'd > already seen > what had happened with other very large articles.) > > This "product" has to be sold to admins to get them to use it; they > saw the > first version and all of its significant problems and aren't very > interested. And until there is a product that passes their smell > test, they > still won't be interested. So installing an "upgrade" that hasn't > resolved > ALL of the significant issues is not going to interest the > "consumers". > > The advantage of a coordinated effort of a new trial with an upgraded > release that has addressed all of the significant issues *and* has > been > well-tested on the test wiki is that it can be used to market the > tool. It > doesn't matter whether or not it works well if the people in the > position to > use the tool cannot be persuaded it is worthy of their attention. > Take a > look at the stats, Jimmy: Six administrators were responsible for > entering > 80% of the articles into the first trial, and another 12 responsible > for the > next 17%. Most administrators were not interested the first time > around. > > > >>> It's pretty hard to maintain motivation, though, when it's clear >>> that the >>> software's going to be a permanent feature regardless of what the >>> project >>> does or thinks, and that any further "trial" is not going to >>> change that >>> fact. >> I think that's very very far from true. I think that everything the >> Foundation has said, and everything that I have said, and everything >> that (nearly) everyone on all sides has said, indicates nearly 100% >> universal agreement that in order for the feature to be enabled >> permanently, it has to achieve consensus. >> > >> Consensus is not a "hold one vote and give up if you don't make it" >> process, but rather an iterative give-and-take. >> >> If I believed that the current version was the best that the >> Foundation >> could deliver, I would be adamant about just shutting down PC as >> soon as >> is practical, and believe that the right way forward would be to push >> for major expansion of the use of semi-protection. I would hate >> to do >> that, because I think that a well-implemented PC is a better solution >> than semi-protection, striking a better balance. >> >> My point is this: I think it very far from a foregone conclusion >> that we >> will have PC in use in the longterm. It has to improve a lot before >> that can happen. The early signs, though, are that it was popular. >> > > I'm really curious to know what metric you're using to determine > that it was > "popular". The *idea* is popular with a significant segment of the > community, which is where much of the support in the two polls came > from; > but the *tool* itself wasn't very popular with many editors. And the > concept > of administrator-granted "reviewer" permissions went over like a lead > balloon with a pretty big segment of the community. > > Put the upgrades on the test wiki. Recruit a pile of editors (not just > administrators) to really put it through its paces and drive it > hard, both > those who are technically savvy and those whose strength is > content. These > editors are your potential change agents; if they're convinced it's > working > satisfactorily and that major issues have been resolved, they will > spread > the word on-wiki. Sticking poorly tested software upgrades onto the > #7 > website, and expecting people to be enthusiastic, is remarkably > optimistic. > > Risker/Anne
Regret I was really not involved much in the trial or polls (mostly been on wiki break for the past ~9 months) but quite concerned now given Risker's concerns about the software being buggy and other issues. And seeing people that I have lots of respect for in hot debate (both sides) concerns me... seems tricky to find the right balance and solution for moving forward. [maybe setting rights to bureaucrats or some higher level for now? Allowing only more narrow testing maybe in non-article space or something? Until we can decide what/how/when to move forward with next trial...just throwing ideas out] Anyway, I would like to be more informed and try testing in some test space (is there a test wiki for this?) and some summary of the key issues that I can see? @aude > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
