A page for discussing Wiki Community/Meritocratically Exposed Functionality:

After a long time of considering the manner in which new editors are given full access to the wiki from their first edit I think it is time to start designing another model for integrating new editors into the community. I started with Welcome to the Wiki and then went to realname and then to identity, but these tools are only education after the fact for those who ignore educational resources about how to be a good member of the wiki community.

I propose that in the future new editors should not be able to make any edit until they have introduced themselves and had their intro given the thumbs up by another established editor. Then they should be able to suggest edits using the edit tools that full editors use, but their edits won't go live until approved by established editors. After say five good edits then they can edit.

I don't know if one would have to earn additional abilities or if those steps would be enough. —JasonAller

interesting Daubert

There would have to be a clear cut way of telling people (via automation, some sort of animated grey out etc) so folks don't get perturbed and just give up on the wiki —StevenDaubert

I understand the value in what you are proposing. But I have a bad feeling that it would discourage people from participating at all. If the bar is high to participate, people won't take the time, and we will lose much value from good contributors. Meanwhile, people who are malicious will wait through the test, and then start being malicious. I've sometimes given up on reporting problems with things that I use, because being able to use the system to report the problem caused me more pain than the problem itself. This would have the same problem. Metamoderation, a la http://slashdot.org/ is one way to do this without being too restrictive. Allow someone to start editing. If they edit well, great. If they do not, they lose points. (Karma on slashdot.) If your score falls too low, you can not edit for a certain time. After a while, you get a point back. If your score drops too low again, the time doubles. Eventually, editing becomes impossible. But the barrier to entry is kept low. (Dealing with multiple accounts is another issue, which this does not solve. But it does solve part of the problem.) —IDoNotExist

  • The concept of progressive trust based on community voting on prior actions has proven that it can generate a healthy active online presence with very little moderation effort and results in a community with a much higher signal to noise ratio. Metamoderation has yielded poor signal to noise ratios where it has been tried and the memes on slashdot that detract from the conversation have never been moderated away. —JasonAller
    • People participate in communities like this because they consider it fun and useful, or because they have some sort of other incentive for doing so. (Business owners have a financial incentive to edit their pages, for example, since they reflect on their businesses.) If you take away the incentives, or make it harder to participate, many people just won't. —IDoNotExist
      • You've called the suggestion "hard". Why not suggest how to make it easier? We haven't gotten to the point of even fully storyboarding it out and you are dismissing the idea. Why so much negativity? I'm reminded of a favorite quote: "It wasn't tried and found unworkable, it was found hard and not tried."JasonAller

Or alternatively, we could just ban malicious editors. Reverting is easy. We all can recognize maliciousness. If someone is malicious, it's easy enough to prevent them from editing. But I'd rather give someone new the benefit of the doubt first, or I think we will scare off most new editors. —IDoNotExist

  • What do you mean when you say "we"? I don't have the power to ban anyone, nor do you. I clean up after people who actively damage this and other wikis. Banning has been tried, but it is a problem to ban someone and fairly off-putting. I'm suggesting that we try a path of progressive trust rather than punitive action for anti-social behavior. —JasonAller
    • A few people who have been malicious have been banned. It's not a tool that should be widely available because of the potential for abuse. But it is there. —IDoNotExist

Another thought - a system that requires validation and moderation by established editors puts quite a burden on those editors, and also creates problems in synchronization of conversations. ie. Someone might reply to a comment, but the reply might not be posted for an hour or two, by which time the thread will have moved on, and possibly will have disappeared entirely. There would be some fairly substantial technical challenges in getting this to work in a non-disruptive manner... —IDoNotExist

  • Carry your own weight as a gnome and I'll take your suggestion seriously. A suggested edit is presented to the next full editor who edits the page for approval or denial. Probationary editors would see the other non-approved edit when they edit the page. It just wouldn't be visible during page view. —JasonAller
    • It's too bad that you won't take my comment seriously unless I spend my time doing what you want on the wiki instead of contributing in the ways that I feel are most valuable and the best use of my time. That's up to you. But what you are proposing would place a very high burden on gnomes, disrupt the logical flow of wiki edits and threads (you'll get edit "thrashing" where the lack of synchronization causes pages to whip back and forth between different versions, or causes major edit conflicts all the time), and causes comments to appear long after they are submitted. What if no one wants to moderate for a few hours? What happens when people make changes in the middle of the night when everyone else is asleep, but can only make one change because they can't see the results until morning? It's a nice concept, but it will break the much of the wiki's functionality, while creating a large barrier to participation for new editors. —IDoNotExist
      • How does this suggestion break the wiki? You talk about the burden it would place on gnomes. I'm telling you as a gnome that the current system has not scaled well and has resulted in people relying on gnomes to do too much work. You talk about problems with the suggestion, but in a way that shows you've rejected the solution without understanding it and you haven't offered constructive suggestions about how to improve the proposal. —JasonAller

In addition to the points that IDoNotExist has stated, I think the strategy you pointed out, Jason, ruins the equality of the wiki. You (and others) post on people's pages all the time telling them to edit the entry instead of just making a comment because the Davis Wiki is a community "run by people just like you." If you make it clear from the start that it's a hierarchy as opposed to a place where everybody is equal, you will scare off the well-meaning editors take away the equal opportunities for everyone. - JenniferCook

  • Jennifer, can you point to examples of "post on people's pages all the time telling them to edit the entry instead of just making a comment" in my edit history? I don't think that an editor like Tiarah.Benjamin (history) is equal to an editor like TomGarberson (http://daviswiki.org/Users/TomGarberson?action=userinfo history). As such it is hard to suggest that preventing Tiarah's spam is ruining the wiki. —JasonAller
    • Maybe it's not you personally who posts comments like those on people's user pages, but I have seen many of them suggesting that a user edit the actual wiki entry instead of commenting to suggest a change. I don't disagree with you that spammers are a problem, I just think that by making new editors jump through hoops to be able to edit freely, you are essentially taking the wiki out of the wiki. Newcomers would feel alienated and as though they are "less than" people like you, Tom, William, CP, etc., who are moderating their contributions. - JenniferCook
    • If you scroll down about 2/3 of the way on the Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion page you will see that Jabberwoky is the person I was thinking of. Quoting him from this page: "Why don't you just edit the actual entry and put all the things you have to say directly into the article? It would make that Wiki entry better — and after all it's your entry to edit as much as it is anyone else's. More to the point, if you don't, who will? You're perfectly able to edit the entry itself... so go'fer it!" - JenniferCook
      • I'd like it to be a situation where it isn't Tom, William, JabberWokky, and I and a few others being put in the position of having to moderate in order to keep the wiki healthy. I'd like it to be a process that it integrated into the mechanics and flow of the wiki software. My suggestion is an attempt not to make it harder for new editors, but to ensure that they don't end up having their first few edits reverted because they didn't take the time to understand the wiki before using it.

        I feel sorry for a new editor who has managed to miss the request to sign up with their real name (or one that they can establish identity under) and that they don't own the page about their business and who as a result garners the wrath of those who have to clean up after them. How often do new editors like that get treated like the have made that same mistake before and that they chose to abuse the wiki rather than being given a fresh benefit of the doubt that they just were ignorant? I know that I'm sick of seeing account names that end in "manager" and I'm likely to be jaded about their choice of username. I'd rather avoid that situation. I'd rather that they edit with a sense of identity as a member of the wiki community.

        There are changes afoot and the wiki software that has not been updated in a long time is being dusted off. It is time to take a look at all options and assumptions and see if changes can be made that will improve the wiki from the addition of a WYSIWYG editor to changes to how the software influences the integration of new editors into the community. Right now new editors are dumped in with full privileges and that has proven to result in the very problems that you've talked about where a small group of gnomes gets forced into negative behavior patterns in order to keep the wiki free from spam and abuse. I've seen progressive trust used well on other sites and I'm trying to open the discussion here about how it could be used without generating too high a barrier to entry for new editors. Rather than tell me it would be too hard, tell me how we could make it easier for new users. —JasonAller

Flow description 1

  1. new editor becomes aware of wiki

  2. decides to participate

  3. sees create new account or login

  4. clicks create new account

  5. is shown wikispot introduction unless wiki they came from has edited their own welcome. Look at how http://stackoverflow.com/ handles the process

  6. proceeds to sign up form

    1. picks username

    2. provides email address

    3. asked to fill out their introduction, examples are provided via link

  7. is sent e-mail as soon as some editor has seen their introduction on recent changes and responded to it.

  8. is free to make edits, banner on page reminds them that their first 5 edits are not going live until another editor reviews them.

  9. once those are approved they are a full editor

  • Step 7 and 8 are where the technical problems and burden on existing editors I described above will occur. —IDoNotExist
    • Then propose a constructive solution. —JasonAller
      • Allow editors to flag edits as "malicious" or "bad". This doesn't change the edit, but lowers a reputation score for that user. If your reputation score drops too low, you lose the ability to edit for some time. That time doubles each time your score drops too low. Eventually, it becomes impossible for you to edit. Your edits might even show up highlighted for a time to let people know that you have a bad reputation. When you make a good edit, your score goes up. There would need to be some restrictions to prevent malicious flagging. (To prevent someone from flagging someone they don't like off of the wiki - itself a malicious act.) Note that there is no requirement for someone to approve every edit, or even every new edit. You flag if you want to. This is scalable, and doesn't place an added burden on anyone. —IDoNotExist
        • Would you require a downvote to have an explanation attached to it? How do you ensure that the downvoted editor sees that before repeating their mistake on another page? —JasonAller
          • It would be reasonable to allow one to be added. An easy way to do that without burdening editors would be to offer a menu of reasons to choose from ("Spam", "Can't advertise", etc.). A longer explanation, with links and what to do, could automatically be added to the user's page, or could show up at the top of the page they are viewing in a box when they next view a page. That way, the explanation needs to only be written once for each reason, and can be applied to bad editors as needed. This gives you an explanation and a corrective action in only two clicks. —IDoNotExist
    • Without addressing the technical side of it, I actually don't see the burden on existing editors as being all that substantial. Obviously there'd be a lot of discussion necessary to hammer out what's worth approving (IMO it'd need to be a pretty low bar to get approved). I'd also love to see an easy to use feedback system for those initial edits, so whoever's approving or declining them can offer constructive advice, direct the new editor to the Business Owner welcome, or what have you. Plus it would have the added effect of discouraging sockpuppetry. —TomGarberson
  • I've rewritten my reply like 10 times now, so I think I may need to let my thoughts percolate a bit more. I'll just say now that after thinking on it for a while, Jason's proposal seems a lot better than it did an hour ago when I first saw it. There are some trade-offs inherent in any obstacle to participation, but the more I think about this particular approach, the more I think the trade-off might be worthwhile. —TomGarberson
    • People like to do things when they are easy. There's a very low pain threshold for participation unless there is an incentive in place to make them accept some pain. We get lots of people who are willing to work on the wiki because it's very easy to join and start editing. Each time you add a barrier to entry, you lose people who are willing to participate. Do we want a wiki with dedicated editors but little new content? —IDoNotExist

Flow description 2

  1. new editor becomes aware of wiki

  2. decides to participate

  3. sees create new account or login

  4. clicks create new account

  5. is shown wikispot introduction unless wiki they came from has edited their own welcome. Look at how http://stackoverflow.com/ handles the process

  6. proceeds to sign up form

    1. picks username, is given feedback if their pick ends in numbers or includes certain phrases

    2. provides email address, explain that it must be valid e-mail to proceed

    3. asked to fill out their introduction, examples are provided via link

  7. is sent e-mail as soon as some editor has seen their introduction on recent changes and responded to it. These show up in recent changes as new Users/ page, but with different colored event tag

  8. is free to make edits, banner on page reminds them that their first 5 edits are not going live until another editor reviews them. They must collect their 5 approvals from different editors for them to count. So if someone approves their first five edits, then they still need to make 4 more that will be approved by 4 other editors.

  9. they make their first edit, it goes into Recent changes as "suggestion" or with some other edit tag.

  10. anyone who glances at it and doesn't think it abusive can click "approve" and it will be live on the page. If someone tries to edit a page with a pending suggestion they need to either accept or reject the suggestion. if rejecting a suggestion you have to explain why.

  11. repeat that process a couple more times and then grant them full editing

  • I think this method has potential. It's not forcing anyone to approve or reject edits (unless they want to further edit the same page), it's not restricting new editors from freely editing as they see fit, and it avoids the problems that IDoNotExist was mentioning about comments or other edits not showing up for some period of time. - JenniferCook

Reputation Based Editing

Since IDoNotExist didn't like the first suggestion I'll throw out another way to do it. New editor starts with zero reputation points. As they gain them by actions they get more and more access to what they can do. Personally I think this is more cumbersome to map onto the wiki process, but I'd like to demonstrate to IDoNotExist how brainstorming works.

Reputation Points
Ability Gained
make edits
vote on other editors actions
upload photos
make new pages
revert pages
delete pages and edit home page
Change Logo for a day

Each action on Recent changes can be voted up or down by editors who can vote.

Don't tell me why this won't work, suggest something better.

  • See my comment above. (At risk of duplicating something in a thread, I'm going to repost it here because it will likely get lost up there and addresses this proposal well too.) Allow editors to flag edits as "malicious" or "bad". This doesn't change the edit, but lowers a reputation score for that user. If your reputation score drops too low, you lose the ability to edit for some time. That time doubles each time your score drops too low. Eventually, it becomes impossible for you to edit. Your edits might even show up highlighted for a time to let people know that you have a bad reputation. When you make a good edit, your score goes up. There would need to be some restrictions to prevent malicious flagging. (To prevent someone from flagging someone they don't like off of the wiki - itself a malicious act.) Note that there is no requirement for someone to approve every edit, or even every new edit. You flag if you want to. This is scalable, and doesn't place an added burden on anyone. —IDoNotExist
    • How does that work with an edit history like: this one? A flurry of edits all at once. In my system they don't earn points for the poor or minor edits, or you group repeated edits as a single edit. Maybe in my system she has to make more good edits to earn her way to full editing. She missed reading the introduction, I don't think she should be downvoted several times and then find herself effectively temp banned because her reputation dropped too low. I think that would be more frustrating for a new user than to be put on a track to full editing with a mechanism for feedback from more experienced editors. —JasonAller
  • I'm not a huge fan of this one because it creates a sort of hierarchy which goes against the principles of a wiki, where everyone is supposed to be able to edit. What if someone came here because they wanted to post a picture of their lost cat or dog? They'd be able to make a preliminary edit including a description but not a picture. I think that once a person is determined to be trustworthy, they should have just as many privileges as the next guy. - JenniferCook
    • I'm pretty sure your level 100 ability is functionally identical to the level 0 one. Also, your level 50 one is too high. And the 500 one is No Just No. Anyway, these seem to be the kind of changes that would encourage me to make multiple stealth accounts in order to I could effectively troll whenever I need to. —BrentLaabs

Scalable point based reputation system with automated feedback

  1. Each user starts with x points.

  2. Gain points slowly over time for editing without having your edits flagged. (Say, 1 point per day on days when you make at least one edit.)

  3. Lose half your points for posts that are flagged.

    1. (The number of points lost might go up if lots of people flag your post, or be low if only one does).

  4. If your score drops too low, you can't edit for t time. The value of t doubles when you drop below certain thresholds. Eventually, this prevents you from editing at all.

  5. To flag (limited to editors with enough points), you select a flag reason from a drop down menu.

  6. If someone flags your edit, the reason is placed in a box above the next page you view. You will know immediately why someone has flagged your edit. Links to more info can be included.

    1. This keeps editors from having to type out reasons every time. This provides all the needed information every time, as well as corrective feedback, without editors having to spell anything out individually.

  7. Editors can be flagged for malicious flagging, to prevent abuse.

  8. Points do not affect *what* you can edit. Only how often you can do so.

  9. Edits from low scoring users can be highlighted or marked with an icon to indicate that they come from a source with a poor reputation.

  10. Note that this method allows someone to show that they can improve their behavior over time by acting positively, but effectively bans them automatically if they behave poorly. The value of x can be tuned so that you can unintentionally make mistakes as a new editor (as many people do) and not lose the ability to edit, but if you continue to behave maliciously, you lose your ability to edit very rapidly.

One issue with this method is that if they create a new account it is given the default trust and then we end up with RealComputers01, RealComputers02, RealComputers03... —JasonAller

  • This will always happen so long as the wiki doesn't require proof of identity to create an account. It's why the "real names" idea doesn't work. You can always just make up another "real name". But there are options there too. If an account with a bad reputation has posted from a certain IP recently, then any new account created from that IP can start with a lower reputation, reflecting the likelihood that it is the same user. Because IPs are not fixed, older actions would have to be weighted less than newer ones. However, if you create an account that gets a bad reputation, then the rate at which you can create new accounts from the same IP doubles each time you create a new one with a bad reputation. Pretty quickly, a malicious editor would be unable to create new accounts without finding a new computer. It's not perfect, because you can always find a new computer. But it's hard to do better without verifying identities. —IDoNotExist
    • You misunderstand the real names issue. Part of it is simply basic human respect to introduce yourself and stand behind your name. Your name is your word. It is tied to a slew of positive human social behavior, promotes empathy and connects to a crucial aspect of both Davis and the Davis Wiki: the core concept of community. It is not a matter of "What is on your driver's license?", but rather "Let's get to know each other, because we are sharing this space". It is a human society issue, not a registration one. Identity establishes a person's stake in the project, and your real name is whatever you identify yourself with. If you choose not to use your real name, a clear reason and explanation why can easily suffice (see CovertProfessor's editor entry). But the most common reason in practice is, "I don't want you people to know me". That is a categorical rejection of stepping into this community and a conscious decision to raise a profound barrier to real social connections. Hand in hand with that attitude is often a concurrent position of, "I don't give a snot about what I do here, because it will never reflect on the 'real' me". That produces problems. The person wearing a mask over their face at the public gathering is not there to make friends and contribute to the community. Of course it isn't always the case, but using zero stake identities or opaque titles does cause real, observed problems here on the wiki. It is important to remember that those problems are actually just the surface effect from deeper social issues of empathy and community that quite often parallel a refusal to identify with your actions and interactions. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards, who has made no points regarding any proposal, so don't read any support or criticism into this comment.
      • JW: There are many reasons why someone might not want to use a "real name". There was a wave of malicious users threatening to sue editors and posting malicious web pages about them a while back when they didn't get what they wanted on the wiki. There's the ability to give honest and complete reviews of businesses without reward or punishment from them. There's the issue of permanence - could your review of a restaurant in 2006 come back to haunt you when you are looking for a job in 2026? There's privacy. There are people who've been stalked after posting on the wiki, and there are people who are trying to avoid being identified by real world stalkers. And there's the fact that a "real name" doesn't have any ties to the real world anyway. Someone could pick the name "BarackObama". How do you know it's not really some guy from Chicago who lives in a pretty spiffy house in DC? You don't. I don't know who CovertProfessor is in real life, and I can't even prove that they are a professor (although I'd be surprised if they were not). But that doesn't matter. I respect what they've done on here based on their actions. The name they chose isn't relevant. You shouldn't have to prove who you are in real life to make a valuable contribution. And even if you should, unless you have a way to *prove* who someone really is, the name they choose is irrelevant, because they can always pick someone else's real life name. —IDoNotExist
        • ...and yet all it takes is one person to attach your real name to IDoNotExist and you've lost that imaginary curtain you are hiding behind while you take shots at the suggestions and work that others are doing. The illusion of being anonymous is a lie, and a nasty one. —JasonAller
          • You appear to be under the impression that I'm taking shots at other people's work. I am not. You seem to be under the impression that people who want to edit the wiki in a *different* way than you, or does not want to do things in the way that you prefer, then they are doing something bad. They are not. If someone wants to remain anonymous, that's their choice, and not for you to judge. If someone disagrees with you, that is not a shot at you (at least not from me). I'm being critical of your proposed *method* because I can see a number of significant technical and social problems with it that I think would hurt the wiki, and I do care about the wiki. —IDoNotExist
        • Who said prove? You can walk up to me and say your name is Issac Newton. It's not about proof. Nor is it a requirement for editing (and I never said it should be). But is one heck of an "screw you" to say "you can't know who I am because I don't trust anybody here". One that is delivered to a community and each individual member of that community. One that you deliver quite eloquently. It is about reaching out to people — or coying refusing to. It is a barrier to empathy and a sense of commitment to a real community. If you really have issues with futureproofing your actions, simple guideline: If you wouldn't do it at Central Park, facing real people, don't do it here in front of the same people. The wiki records your actions, sure... and so do cellphones and people's memories. Don't wear a skimask to Central Park and expect people to find your approachable. I heard that you didn't use an alias during the Google Fiber meeting. Why not? Again, I have not said a single thing about editing rights here. It is about the social issues. And in the real world, we have all kinds of social tools: "A friend was telling me that the best place to get pot in town is...", or "I heard that somebody saw...". We place ourselves one step removed from things we were actually directly involved in all the time in public conversation when you are standing in front of somebody. People lie. That's just life. But publicly avowing not to be accountable for your actions and saying "I don't want any of you to know who I am" does has an effect on the community. Are you really saying it doesn't? And just because you seem to keep confusing the issue: I am not talking about limiting editing rights or demanding any kind of proof of identity. I am talking about the social impact of an act that hampers the ability to forge empathetic connections within a community of neighbors who bike the same streets. An act that splits the wiki community of editors from the Davis community of people, which should be as close to unison as possible. -jw
          • JW: you may be confusing two different things that I'm talking about here. Or we may not be talking about the same thing. To me, a name online is an identifier. Someone can make up any identifier they want. Should you believe them? Why? On Facebook, your username is your real name. You have some assurance that the person you are talking to is that person, because you can look at their friend network and see if the social relationships they have make sense for that person. But sometimes people create fake accounts, or get their accounts taken over. How do you *really* know who you are talking to? In many cases, you don't. On Twitter, twitter (the company) has started verifying the accounts of famous people because anyone can pick any name they want. You have some assurance that the famous person is real because the company has apparently gone to some length to verify that person's identity. When you go to a bank, the bank doesn't take you at your word that you are Evan. They require some proof. When you get on an airplane, they require some proof of ID so that some random person doesn't print out a ticket and claim to be you. A name by itself is meaningless, except to describe to whom you are referring. It's only when you combine it with some information that tells you that you can believe who that name belongs to that it can be tied to more than that. My point is that a "real name" on the wiki is not necessarily real. Brian came on here and claimed to be Brian (or RealComputers, or whatever.) He then damaged his reputation. Now let's say he came back and claimed to be Amelia. He's not Amelia. But we don't know that. So if Amelia starts acting like Brian, we might guess they are the same person. But if not, how can we possibly know? This has nothing to do with accountability, at least from my perspective. It has to do with the fact that the wiki, by design, makes no guarantees of who you are. So even if you claim to have some "real name", that doesn't mean it's true. Your reputation on the Wiki comes from your actions on the wiki. (As for me personally, I'm not hiding my actions. I don't do anything on the wiki that I wouldn't be comfortable doing in real life. However, that doesn't mean that I want my name splayed all over the wiki. For example, I've made it pretty clear on one wiki page that I'm opposed to people bringing concealed weapons onto campus. If you ask me in person, I'll offer exactly the same view. But that doesn't mean that I want everyone in the future to know that I hold that view. For example, what if I go for a job interview in the future and the person who interviews me happens to really want concealed weapons on campus, and then Googles my name. They might decide that they don't want me to work for them, even though it has nothing to do with the job. (CovertProfessor, as far as I know, maintains their anonymity for *exactly* the reason that it could impact their ability to interact with their students or other professors, even though they clearly are an excellent contributor to the wiki.) Or they might draw (potentially incorrect) conclusions about be based on my views on that one topic. Should I not participate in the discussion (which is important to me, because I don't want people to die from gun violence) because of that? Wanting to be anonymous doesn't mean that someone is malicious, antisocial, or putting up barriers to interacting with the community. It means that someone may have other considerations - including ones that may not be apparent - that they are taking into account. It's a personal decision. —IDoNotExist
            • yes, it is a personal decision, and I am an advocate for the ability to use whatever name you want. If you don't see that, then you really did miss every point I made. I absolutely support the freedom of anonymity. I highly suggest you reread what I wrote and understand that social accountability and anonymity are two different things. I had written more, but lost the connection. -jw
    • No. If someone has to work to raise an account to the level where they can make edits it reduces the incentive to start sockpuppet accounts or to go around a temp ban. It doesn't matter if they establish their identity under their real name or not any longer, but it causes them to have to establish identity as part of the process of gaining enough trust from the wiki community to be able to edit. Remove the incentive to behave poorly and the quality of behavior should rise. —JasonAller
      • Identity on the wiki *is* your reputation. The name just identifies that reputation. It does *not* identify the person. If you have to work to make edits initially, a lot of people won't do it. People adopt a technology when it *solves* a problem for them, not when it creates new ones. If they have to work hard just to post the first time, you've created a new one, and you haven't solved their problem. If they can't make edits initially, you have nothing on which to base a reputation. If they can make them, but someone must approve them, you have all of the problems that I've mentioned before. —IDoNotExist
        • I showed the path by which a new editor who has not yet established trust can do so. They can work toward editing right from the start and if their first few suggested edits are valid ones those get made as soon as they are approved. If new accounts start off with full access then the wiki gathers accounts like those on Identity/Abuse. —JasonAller
          • Right, but your method has significant technical problems, as I've described above. Those technical problems lead to ease of use problems and potential participation problems. And they *guarantee* additional work for editors for *every* new user. —IDoNotExist
  • I like IDNE's proposal better than Jason's proposals. Sorry, Jason, this isn't personal. I think we're all trying to figure out what is best for the wiki, and we've all gotten frustrated, at varying times and to varying degrees, with misbehavior on the wiki. (And sometimes with each other, but that happens). Here's one category of wiki contributor that I want to think about, however: The person who comes because they've had a very bad, or a very good experience with a business, and they leave a comment. Or they've lost a cat, or need a roommate. They make one or two edits and then they go away. But sometimes they come back later (sometimes months later). They make a few more edits. They think, hey, this is kind of cool. Maybe I'll make a profile for myself and stick around. I have seen this pattern many times and I am always pleased to see it. People dip their toes in and later decide that the water is just fine. If we make things too hard — if we make them dive in from the outset — they won't bother, and I think we'll lose many potential contributors as a result. Making people create a profile and introduce themselves, forcing them to go through an approval process — I think many would find these things offputting. It seems to me that IDNE's solution offers a way to give people a low bar while still giving us a way to deal with people who abuse that bar. (Sorry to mix metaphors). Is the system perfect? No, no system is perfect; there are always ways to abuse any system. But I think it would be an improvement over what we have now. —CovertProfessor
    • I've avoided this page as I'm supposed to be writing grants, but if you sit and read it through all it once, it does leave a little bit of a sour taste in your mouth. Perhaps it's just me whose been paying attention over the last several months, but there does seem to be a bit of residual friction between Jason and IDNE, and it made me a bit sad. Ultimately, I have to agree with most of CP here. I dislike the proposals above from JA, and no, I don't feel as if I need to provide an alternate system. However, I think any step in the above proposals (even IDNE's) really flows away from the wiki. The very first concept was very simple: everyone can edit, everyone's equal. I believe that's what Jennifer brought up above as well. I've been off and on the wiki since 2005, under two different names. There are months where I've gnomed like crazy, and months where I barely edit. In these later years since I left Davis, I've certainly been contributing less, but I still love Davis and the wiki is the closest thing I have to revisiting it... Certainly in the past I've been an extremely ardent opponent of the "real name" concept, and I heartily have disagreed with JW and JA about names and community. Pretty sure once every other year or so we bring up the same points. (A town community versus a virtual community on the internet - I have always hated the farmers market name introduction example). What I've certainly said mirrors CP's post above. People come by, do something or other, dissapear and come back. There are far, far more lurkers, using the wiki than there are users. It's usually a certain event that finally draws them to make the account and edit something. I had dozens of friends who did that, and I know quite a lot of my brothers friends (who are now undergrads at Davis) use the wiki as another resource similar to yelp, chowhound, metromix, etc with even more Davis trivia tossed in. No, they don't have accounts. They probably won't make one until they feel compelled to...such as if they loose their cat, need to find someone to sublet to in an emergency, or have an awful time at a restaurant. Or maybe they bought the best snowboard ever and want to give a thumbs up to the shop. I really think that changing the system at all is just going to hurt the wiki. Let these things grow organically, prune where needed. Me and a few others used to be a bit quick to delete pages we felt were off-topic, and that's exactly the thing some other editors told us: give it some time to see if it can grow, and then deal with it. Starting off with restrictions, whether it's to user accounts or to entry pages, isn't a good idea in the long run. Especially if you take into account the number of active editors: we aren't exactly dealing with hundreds (thousands?) of people like Slashdot does . It's easier to deal with the trash and cleanup after the fact. If a gnome feels the burden is too high, I'd suggest they back off a little, as they aren't obligated to do so. I suppose it comes down to what people want the wiki to be. I imagine it slightly like a park, much like one of the many in Davis. Either we can restrict hours, alcohol, and try to keep it very clean and organized at the cost of far less people coming to the park, or we could open it up, risk some more trash and littering issues, but have a park full of visitors having fun. My understanding was that since the onset, the wiki wanted to be like the latter: some trash and mess is inevitable, some good-intentioned people will clean up after others, but it'd be a lot of people and a lot of fun. "Everyone can edit this website!" -ES
      • There is a person whom I use to illustrate how anonymity can be accomplished without aggression when Jason and I discuss the subject. I can't mention them in public, but I think you know the person. If not, it's basically a variant name. I don't like the idea of any restrictions at all. But I am not so zealous that I deny that there is a marked social difference between interacting with a person named DoucheyPhilip versus Jess455. To deny the fact that anonymity, especially aggressive anonymity, has an effect on the social interactions here on the wiki is something that I won't do. And I firmly believe that one can advocate for freedom and also recognize the issues that arise from it. I think much of what I have said has been misunderstood. If I wasn't typing this for the second time on an iPad in Danville, ct while on a road trip and sititing in a parking lot of a mcdonalds, I'd write more. But road trips are good for the soul and lousy on bandwidth. If there are errors anywhere, please feel free to fix them. But I wanted to quickly interject that, although I have written a dozen times here that I am not advocating any proposal here, people are still misreading everything I write. I simply refuse to say that there is no community or social interaction issues inherent in somebody editing using the name AssistantManager or RatherNot. That does not translate into support for authoritarian denial of pseudonyms, despite what everybody seems to read into what I write. I'll try to write my actual thoughts this evening at the hotel, but the rampant misunderstanding of what I've written here needed quick addressing. -jw
        • I agree with you. My post was more referring to some cross-talk between JA and IDNE on this page, and as I'm supposed to be writing training grants, I clearly didn't follow this page clearly and/oror respond/make my point clearly. I'm probably still not! As a sidenote, as you replied to IDNE above, I would agree that "DoucheyDude42" or "Thisrestaurantsucks" is different than "Bobby2002" or "tacolover". I'm not a fan of "aggressive" anonymity either. Heck, I used to go by my real name, and I changed it for a few practical reasons (one of which was someone at a restaurant recognized my name and I thought it was a bit creepy!) And I've never thought anyone took issue when I switched to an initial instead ("Edwin S"). My simplified point of the above post is just that I don't like the idea of changing the system of creating accounts and trying to put hoops in there to jump through. I think it'll be harmful in the long run, as I believe in CP's "dipping the toes in" model. -ES

Flow description 2, Lite version

"I propose that in the future new editors should not be able to make any edit until they have introduced themselves and had their intro given the thumbs up by another established editor. Then they should be able to suggest edits using the edit tools that full editors use, but their edits won't go live until approved by established editors. After say five good edits then they can edit." In principle I think that Jason's suggestions are excellent. Keep it as simple as possible, whatever is easiest to implement, and modify it later if needed. Thus I think reputation points are too complicated. I don't know that they need to introduce themselves, but I see the advantage of requiring the first few edits be vetted by another editor. That could reduce the worst edit problems: the drive-by anonymous postings, and the business owners/managers who try to manipulate their pages inconsistently with the spirit of the wiki. See if the edit-approval probation accomplishes what you're after. So a slimmed-down version of flow 2 above: 1. Sign up and choose a user name. If they use a pseudonym, editors provide link to the reasons-to-use-your-real-name page. I agree that requiring an email address is a good idea. There are anonymous options for people who want that, and they're probably already aware of those. But I think that just the act of requiring an email registration could reduce the worst edits. 2. Try to edit; get the notice that the first five have to be approved; editors see it in 'recent changes' as suggested above and act on it. Explain rejected edits; probably a page of FAQ's would suffice. 3. After five edits are approved, they have free run of the board. —DonShor

  • A couple of other suggestions I've been mulling over. 1) Have submitted edits approved automatically after X amount of time if they aren't rejected. Probably 12 or 24 hours. This way, if editors are being apathetic or the gnomish folk aren't around for a while, it won't lock down new users. If there's a bad edit, it's going to get shot down quickly, and the approval process will still have the desired deterrent effect on malicious editors and sockpuppets. 2) I think it's important to have an effective feedback mechanism, both for helping new users get a sense of the way things are normally done here, and to make it a lot easier to differentiate between malicious editors and those who simply aren't receiving their feedback (it took me a while to notice that "messages!" note in the upper right corner). —TomGarberson
    • I'll also note that I don't think a reputation feedback system would achieve the desired goal. Yes, it would slow down large-scale harmful editors when they start to get out of hand (like everyone else, my mind goes straight to RealComputers here). The advantage to having a minor price of entry like the Jason's proposal is that it would discourage spammers and sockpuppets and, at the same time, encourage new users to engage a little more. The former advantage is a nice convenience that would cut down on the workload of the gnomes a bit. The latter, though, is the important one in my opinion. Just thinking of something to say when introducing yourself means you're already engaging with the community. I don't think you necessarily need to use your RealName; it's more important that you engage the community and begin to establish an identity. RealName goes a long way toward that goal, but it isn't vital. The initial, approved edits with an effective feedback system will help new users learn quickly, and having the feedback system continue after those trial edits will also help.

      I was also initially concerned about the loss of potential casual editors by adding a cost of entry, but after quite a bit of consideration, I don't think it will be as bad as I initially felt. The loss will also be offset. Those who do enter will be slightly more committed. What's more, people who just want to add a review can easily do so. There's really only one additional step—the introduction. Even though your initial comment is moderated, as long as it's not problematic, it sticks. —TomGarberson

7. Editors can be flagged for malicious flagging, to prevent abuse. That will make it interesting. Frankly, I'd be tempted to flag about 75% of the anonymous negative comments that get posted. I think that's about the percentage of either retaliation or malicious business competition posts that we get. —jimstewart

My input:

1. The point system could work both ways, allowing established editors to downgrade malicious editors, but also giving malicious editors to ability to downgrade established ones. 2. Edit wars are annoying enough. In my opinion, the point system would provide nastier, more abrasive ammo for edit wars. 3. Jason's proposal is a manageable, but I personally don't think its necessary at this time. Sure we do have small problems on here, but I've always enjoyed seeing wiki editors come together to find solutions. 4. I appreciate the open-forum aspect of Daviswiki. The freedom to edit any page on Daviswiki fosters healthy discussions and a collaborative and egalitarian community. I want to keep it that way.

Bottom line, leave things as they are. —jefftolentino

  • I would tend to agree that no action would be preferable to a reputation system which could easily lead to grudges and the like. I still maintain that a significant amount of progress could be made simply by implementing a system that ensures users see feedback they're getting, either via a popup notification or a notification bar at the top of every page they load, in place of the little "messages!" note. If I'm not mistaken, though, I think any major change would be something down the line in the potential next version of the wiki software—not an immediate thing. Meaning that there'd be a lot of fine-tuning and discussion. I doubt this is something that could be developed and tacked onto the existing system with ease. —TomGarberson
    • I'd be fine with adding a popup notification or a far more visible bar than a little flag in the top right corner. These things are modifications to add visibility to things we already have in place, rather than introducing some sort of hierarchy/ranking system. I don't think a popup would be the best, due to how many of us have popup blockers, but some sort of expanded message bar...at least for new users, would be neat. -ES

Good points about a reputation system possibly leading to another version of edit wars (god, we don't need that!) and the need for better ways to get the attention of new editors. Thus, I think it's worth considering Don's "slimmed down" version of Jason's proposal. As long as we can find better way to integrate new people into the community that's easy on gnomes and easy for new editors, I am for it. —cp

Flag new edits approach

  1. People make account pretty much as usual.

  2. People edit selected wiki as usual.

  3. If that user has less than 10 edits, or if wiki_edits_global/wikis_edited < 5, then their edit appears as light blue or lime green or something on the Recent Changes page (IWRC too).

  4. Other wikizens pay attention as needed, and help to introduce people to the wiki who have screwed up their first few edits.

This has the advantage of being decently easy to implement, too.

The point of this proposal is: Bullshit barriers to entry turn me off, and I wouldn't start to contribute to a community that has them. Even account creation turns me off, and we already have that. The wiki needs to continue to grow, despite the huge content here, and we need more super-active editors who actually live in Davis.

Having a reputation point system sounds like a Wikipedia style bureaucracy, which is far too annoying for a small community like ours. I feel that I should remind you all that Barnstars are only awarded on dwiki for Excellence in Trolling. Reputation is a very person-to-person thing, and if you don't know a person's reputation then you should go out and meet him/her in person. This is a local wiki, after all. —BrentLaabs

  • I would concur wholeheartedly with the previous statement, moreover, I would also move to second the motion... Do we have quorum? —Daubert
  • "Bullshit barriers to entry turn me off." Sorry, please explain which of the proposals above you consider "bullshit barriers," and why you chose to use that term in furtherance of this discussion. —DonShor

    I think he means anything other than joining and having anything but full editing rights would be a form of a bs barrier... Daubert

    • That still doesn't explain why it was necessary to be inflammatory. We're all more or less in agreement on the goals here, and just trying to figure out the best way to achieve them. —cp
  • Too bad this seems to be going nowhere. There have been edits recently that would have been greatly improved by some version of Jason's suggestions. Could we resume the conversation, in a civil manner? —DonShor
    • I seconded and called for quorum on the proposal from Mr. Laabs but no one responded... Daubert
    • Well, I second DonShor's proposal, with TomGarberson's added suggestions. I have no problem with Brent's proposal, but it doesn't really address the messiness that can occur with new editors. I think it's worth keeping in mind that it can be extremely frustrating for new editors to have people changing their text without knowing what is going on. We try to reach out to the new editors to let them know what is going on (sometimes more patiently than others), but we lack a good mechanism for doing so. —cp
  • I was going to suggest something like this, but it seems like I was beaten to it. Though I would like to add that flagged edits not be automatically highlighted, but instead, a little "flag" icon next to the article title (or section?). Readers can click the flag to activate the CSS for highlights. Might be less intimidating to some. —EBT
    • I really like Brent's idea, or EBT's modification. I'm absolutely against some of the "barriers to entry" type things above (reputation points, minimum edit requirements, etc). I do think added visibility is slightly different, if it's minor. Either highlight an edit, or a flag, whatever. On the recent changes page, it looks like we have "Changes" "New" "Deleted" as icon flags, and "changes" comes with a gray background or a yellow background. Adding another little catagory or whatever would work to increase visibility. Be it a different icon, some sort of flag, or highlighted, I don't think those minor changes are a bad idea. It really serves just to draw a little bit of attention to the person and someone on the wiki could try outreach if needed. Another potential modification is that it's simply anyone without a user page. You know how pages with no links aren't underlined but dashed? (_ _ _ _ _). Perhaps a new catagory of the "Changes" button with a different background (instead of gray or yellow, red?) when the page is edited by someone with no user page. No idea on the coding or feasibility aspect, but I suppose it'd help draw attention to the page edited, and also would encourage people to help welcome the guy and make a user page to open communication up. That way it'd be multi-purpose. -ES

Look at the guy editing the rodness page now, it should be made clear that your user name is also a page with which people can communicate with you. Sagat also took a while to figure out that the name was a page, and that is after I told her in person... —StevenDaubert

Whatever approach is implemented should block individuals such as kato from their ability to continue deleting pages. I think requiring email registration and a limit on early edits would probably accomplish that. —DonShor

Isn't email registration required now? I thought I gave an email address when I registered, but it's been awhile. —cp

You do need to use an email addy to register, as I recall, but as I understand it your account isn't tied to your email address. The thing I'd like to see is an actual email address-based account, like you have on various forums and the like. Adding email notifications (optional, but on by default) for messages would do amazing things for outreach, and would dramatically help in separating malicious editors from confused ones. Frankly, I think that would take us 90% of the way toward the ends contemplated by the various proposals here. I still like the idea of a more interactive introduction to the community. But effective notification would be a big intermediary measure. —TomGarberson

  • E-mail addresses are trivial to create. If one is required to use the wiki, a malicious editor can simply go to yahoo and create one. All it proves is that someone who has signed up for the wiki has an e-mail address. It doesn't help to determine their intentions, unfortunately. —IDoNotExist
    • The point is, it can be used as a method of contact. —wl
      • Exactly. And that's why it's only 90%. It would make it far easier to deal with all of the editors who need nudging, direction, or clarification, except for the "screw you guys, I can do what I want" crowd. Which is a fairly small group. —tg
        • I agree that it would take us 90% of the way. Many of the problems seem to stem from people who are more or less of good will but who don't understand wiki norms. Being able to contact them quickly would really help. Perhaps if that could be implemented, we could try that for awhile and see how much mess is left over — see if further steps need to be taken. —cp
          • I was asking about essentially the same thing a while back and I think it was either JA or JW who explained that it's not really possible based on the current wiki software. It sounds like it'd have to wait for the next version of the software. I'd hazard a guess that slapping a "you've got mail" banner on the top of each page, similar to the current "messages!" note in the upper right, would be a far easier addition. —tg
            • I suspect that e-mails would get blocked quickly, but a banner at the top of the page would get noticed. —IDoNotExist
              • Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think this is going to affect malicious editors. It's going to help with the genuine editors. The goal is to make sure they know they have messages and show them how to view them. Most forum software has something along these lines for any time you get a private message. By default, you'll get a "You Have A New Message At XYZForum" e-mail. You can turn it off. You can ignore it. You can block it. But if you're actually interested in what's going on at the forum, you'll probably at least look at the message initially, and you'll become aware of that function. Again, though, it's not something that's likely to happen in this version of the wiki, so it's probably a moot point for the foreseeable future. In the interim, a banner would accomplish essentially the same goal. —tg
              • How about... send an email upon first message, and in the email explain 1) This is the only email regarding new messages that the wiki software will ever send, 2) existence&purpose of user page, 3) new message on user page, 4) how to check for these messages in the future, and 5) thanks for reading, have a nice day, happy wikiing, so on so forth. —ebt
                • At risk of being a hypocrite and contradicting myself (regarding not worrying about a perfect system), I've never met anyone that actually reads an account confirmation or signup email. I'm registered on a whole lot of websites and forums, and I've never even really glanced at the standard "Welcome, thanks for the account, here's the rules" emails. It's not a bad idea, I just don't know whether saying it's the "only" email is the way to go. Maybe options might open up in the future....like getting email notifications anytime someone edits your user page. Or having a box to check on account sign up that says you want such emails - with the default option being yes, you do. -ES
          • I'm fine with the email thing - even if they get blocked, it's at least an attempt at outreach at something they might notice. As I mention in a comment below, we don't need to design a super fail-safe system. I personally think the smaller the changes the better. Something minor, see if there's improvements. If there's not enough, come back to it later. Worrying about the few malicious editors is a non-issue imo: how many have we really had in the last year? Or few years? That Shawn guy maybe? These things tend to be isolated incidents/editors, and shouldn't factor into overall wiki talk. Because we all know there's no perfect system. -ES

An admin already has the ability to keep a page from being deleted when appropriate. Is it more desirable to have a faceless system automagically perform these blocks instead of a member of the community that the newbie could rail against? —wl

I have wanted to code an Allerbot for sometime now, it would have certain functionality like welcome newly registered users, and give them small wiki primers. It could also auto protect / create a talk page / inform parties if a certain formula is met, (multiple deletions, etc, it could be fun) My code just isn't the sharpest Daubert.

  • Personally not a fan of a bot or automation. I think every situation is unique, and when people are having issues with the wiki, they really need a bit of a personal outreach. -ES

Re: back-and forth deletion, perhaps some limit could be established, e.g. if user delete the same page X times within Y hours, the system automatically places a deletion moratorium on that page (for all users, lest our vandal-suspect uses multiple IPs or creates new accounts) for some period of time and must be unlocked be an admin, or if admins are unavailable, frees itself from the list after Z days (unless vandal-suspect tries to blank out the page content in the meanwhile). [N.B.: if this sounds clunky, I'm inclined to agree, but I just want to throw some ideas out there] —EBT

  • If a user were malicious and knew about the system, they might do this to keep anyone else from editing the page. —IDoNotExist
    • The moratorium is only placed on the deletion itself; the page could still be edited. (But yes, I realize that they could just blank out the entire page instead.) —ebt
  • Even then, it would be brought to the attention of humans, and the noble bot would just stave off attempts at truly being cruel to the wiki, whilst encouraging communication thru clean concise presentation of relevant wiki data to people who would normally gloss over it... Daubert
  • This has rarely been an issue on the wiki. This reply is more in response to most of the page than this comment in particular, but we've got to be careful not to go crazy here. There's a lot of great ideas on how to keep the wiki safe and workable, but I think a lot of these changes while good in intention, are either unnecessary or additional clunkiness (in comparison to how often something becomes an issue). It's like trying to design the ultimate fence to keep some squirrels out of your backyard, when they only come hang out for a few minutes once a month. Besides, a good chunk of the aforementioned issues usually are cleared up within one to two days (such as that recent apartment manager account). With that said, a long long time ago I had proposed changes to how often people can revert, and they clearly never went through, but I don't think we've had issues with that really (since it was mostly one problem user). I imagine that in a few years, we'll be saying similar about some of these systems. -ES
    • I agree. The openness and simplicity of the wiki is a valuable asset. I'm still voting don't change. —Jefftolentino
    • personally the one thing that I kind of like about this wiki is the sense of equality. Erecting barriers to posting, or rating users comments based on how many comments they have left creates a problem in that either we may risk losing valuable input because the barriers are too high or the users post is disregarded based on a notion that more posts=better user. All in all I think turning the Wiki into a popularity contest may appeal to those who contribute the most, but will ultimately harm the credibility and usefulness of the wiki as a whole. R.W.
      • Would you be opposed to the proposal where a users first few edits are more visible on recent changes? —wl
        • I'm more against the changes that limit new editors. Highlighting the first few edits in recent changes, however, is not a bad suggestion. Its simple, minimally intrusive, and would be useful for gnoming. — jt (ditto —wl)

Once again I second the motion and call for quorum, despite that fact we have no such system for voting / quorum / etc Daubert

  • If you're going to do that, spell out all of the proposed options. —cp

    .... I propose we adopt Brents charming idear and that someone get to cranking away on the actual coding which is the step before actual implementation instead of pretending to second motions and call for nonexistent quorum ? —StevenDaubert

The “Vote” (read: informal poll)

To summarize the proposals so far, we have:

  1. Flow description 1

  2. Flow description 2

  3. Flow description 2, Lite version

  4. Reputation Based Editing

  5. Scalable point based reputation system with automated feedback

  6. Flag new edits approach (as described by the heading of the same name above).

  7. This is the same as #6, but with additional Gnome tools (and clarification of intent): Add informational tools to easily spot new users or questionable edits (like "same ip, different user") on info pages, add new management tools to combat real world issues (such as "revert all changes in the last 24 hours by this account"), but have no mechanical restrictions on content or editing that distinguish editors when editing content. Or, to sum it up: On the content side, all editors are equal and content is open to all, as it is now (i.e., no change). On the information and reporting side (Info tab, Userinfo and Recent Changes), add more options for filtering and flagging, preferably customizable.

  8. Do nothing.

  9. Flag edits made by new editors on the content of the page itself (not just in Recent Changes)

  10. Show up at new editor's houses with a bottle of scotch. Or at least have community cooperative shared learning sessions where people support each other. Share, learn, enjoy, talk. Kick the editing community off the durn wiki and inject the community of people in. Find a place, bring a laptop, tell people. And grow1 from there.

  11. Allow special privileges to donors during fund drives. (i.e. maybe any edit war can be temporarily "won" by out-pledging "offending" editors. Just an idea. Might be fun.)

These are all labeled with headers in the above text. Please add any that may have been missed. Out of respect for your fellow editors, please be sure that you've read and considered all of the options and what may have led to their proposal before expressing a preference. Then "vote" below.

  • I vote for 3 (Flow description 2, Lite version) —DonShor
  • 6/9 (flag new edits, unobtrusively when done on page itself) with some IP tools from 7, and if negative votes were allowed, I would cast negative votes for 4 and 5. Though in all honesty, I wouldn't be bothered too much by 8 (if things were left as is). —ebt
  • I "vote" for 10. I'd settle for 6, because that's something I could code myself. Ideally, I'd like a new introduction with wiki-specific elements, new tools for tracking IPs, and interwiki admin tools for banhammering — but not with the current code base. —BL
  • 10 is the best suggestion thus far (I didn't "vote" for it earlier because it was just added, but I'd gladly forgo my earlier 8 for 10). —jt
  • I vote for 7. I know I've vacillated on this several times, but 7 keeps the content equal for everyone while providing more tools to help out with new editors. So, I think it's worthwhile to see if having more tools eases some of the problems we've had recently before taking more "drastic" measures which might create different classes of editors. I don't think "do nothing" is an option; we've had at least one editor burn out because he took much of the weight on himself. If new tools help spread the work around, we can address wiki problems and prevent burn-out. Or, it's at least worth giving it a try, imo. —cp
  • 7 -ES
  • I originally voted 8 (do nothing), and could have settled for 6 (flag new edits approach), but have since changed this to 11 (fund drive privileges) after donating to localwiki. —jt

Why are we voting? This isn't an editorial issue. It's not like we can just decide this and then it will be magically implemented. The idea here is to come up with ideas and discuss them, not dictate what is in the next version of the software. —WilliamLewis

  • I think its more just a summary of what everyone wants. —jt
  • It isn't a vote, it's a "vote". Polling the pool. -jw


1. In all meanings