Wiktionary:Votes/2006-08/Patrolled edits again

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Straw poll: patrolled edits again.

[edit]

Looking at the workload built up at WT:LWM and reading some of the edits that slip through, I think it may be time to give patrolled edits another shot. I wasn't around when they were shot down the first time, but I am interested to hear why those who are opposed to anonymous edits being patrolled feel the way they do, and what the other numbers are on each side of the issue. - TheDaveRoss 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support:
  1. TheDaveRoss 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Connel MacKenzie 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wytukaze 23:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. From reading the comments below, this sounds useful. Widsith 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ditto Kipmaster 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The purpose and intent already exists, and this is a better method of doing it. DAVilla 17:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. For an automatic method of tracking which edits have/haven't been reviewed: yes. —scs 18:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Dijan 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. \Mike 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Yes. It shouldn't matter to those who are not interested, but it's a pretty useful, if crude, tool for those who do check Recentchanges once in a while (or all the time)[reply]
  10. Provided it is not possible to patrol one's own submissions. SemperBlotto 15:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The meta page on the subject seems to indicate that we would be able to chose between anyone is able to patrol any edit (save one's own) and only sysops are able to patrol edits. It wouldn't be too diffictult for someone to hack together a patch which makes it so who needs to be patrolled and who is able to patrol are more variable options. - TheDaveRoss 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is able to view whether or not something has been patrolled? That should also be restricted to sysops. — Vildricianus 20:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why shouldn't anyone who's trusted to patrol edits be made a sysop? DAVilla 07:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out that sysops have vandalized before... Nevertheless, I agree. - TheDaveRoss 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It's frustating to check new entries to find that someboy else has already reverted the vandalism, while then finding blantant vandalism elsewhere that has gone unnnoticed. Jonathan Webley 08:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
  • Abstain:
  • Comment:
  1. Should this voting be limited only to those who routinely patrol Special:Recentchanges and use CDVF or VF, since we're the only ones affected? --Connel MacKenzie 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nuh uh. --Wytukaze 23:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the nuh uh. - TheDaveRoss 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't see the point of wasting time on this vote. If people want to look at anonymous edits, they just do it. Why do we need a vote for this? Eclecticology 06:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It does make the collaborative effort of screening anon edits much easier, those people who do patrol RC have a better idea what has been looked at and what hasn't. I don't see how this vote is a waste of time, the intent is to find out why those who oppose patrolled edits feel the way they do, if it is for no reason at all then why not turn them back on for those of us who would find them highly useful? - TheDaveRoss 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So who's opposing "patrolled edits"? If the opponents don't exist they can't tell you why.
    Since you don't patrol recent changes, Ec, this obviously doesn't affect you in any significany way. But the straw poll does accomplish informing the devs that we (the Wiktionarians that do patrol) would like this turned on. If I were to tell Brion in IRC that "we" want it turned on, he would...but there would be no "evidence" that the community actually wants it.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 17:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What is this exactly? I like looking at the recent changes and sometimes find things to revert, but I don't do this with any consistancy. I wonder how much gets through? Robert Ullmann 11:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a feature built into wiki which allows us to see which contributions have been double checked and which haven't. It allows simpler collaboration between the people who patrol recent changes, and is a surer method of preventing malicious and bogus edits. All it really does is add a little red marker to anything that hasn't been marked "patrolled" by another user, and removes the marker once the edit has been patrolled. - TheDaveRoss 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I forget what the marker appeared as, specifically. But the granular cleanup templates we have now, did not exist when this feature was first (briefly) tested. And the use of the flag was very poorly identified (as it was still experimental.) I am confident that we can work out an acceptable way to use the "patrolled" flag within the first month, that will tremendously reduce the current duplication of effort. --Connel MacKenzie 17:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This sounds like a sysadmin thing. In my case, I am looking for accuracy and formatting consistency in Chinese language entries. Anytime I see a new, or recently modified, Chinese entry, I always check for these two things regardless of whether the user is anonymous or not (In the words of Simon Cowell, I'm not being rude, but ... I see plenty of bogus stuff from registered users). This process would be made easier for me if new and recently modified words were automatically placed in a category for me to check regularly (ex. Category:recently edited Chinese words). Other than that ... yes, most of the regulars simply do this as a matter of course by checking the recent changes page.

A-cai 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Would having {{rfc-cjkv}} be useful to you? That way I could tag entries I know I haven't a clue about, and you could review them later? --Connel MacKenzie 17:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be good. I'm assuming the tag would place the entry in something like Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (cjkv)?

A-cai 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. bugzilla:7248 submitted. - TheDaveRoss 05:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you can still mark your own edits as patrolled. All a bit pointless really. SemperBlotto 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that anonymous and new users can't mark anything as patrolled, so trusted users still have oversight over those who most need it. - TheDaveRoss 17:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I see (tested in the sandbox) SemperBlotto 17:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should we start a WT:GP thread discussion how we wish to use this new feature? --Connel MacKenzie 17:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that...does "patrolled" mean simply "not vandalism"? Or does it mean "quality content"? Somewhere in between? That is an important distinction. - TheDaveRoss 17:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please start a WT:GP thread... Jonathan Webley 06:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. Yes that started. The link is: Patrolling edits. --Connel MacKenzie 05:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2006-08/Patrolled_edits_again&oldid=75274967"