Wikipedia's new "pending changes" feature

[Zekurom]

Wikipedia is currently running a trial of a new MediaWiki feature called the "pending changes" feature.

What this feature does is allow potential edits to be submitted by regular users on protected pages. These edits will not be immediately applied, and will require an admin to approve.

Here is a link to the description of the feature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes

I believe this feature would be a good one to have on Bulbapedia, as it would mean that pages which would potentially have a lot of speculation on them would not have to be fully protected.

Of course, if this would cause too much spam, then it's a no-go, but I was just wondering whether the concept seems good.

 

[Soulweaver]

For protected pages? I'm all for it.

 

[immewnity]

MediaWiki's wiki has been using it for a LONG time.

 

[Zekurom]

MediaWiki's wiki has been using it for a LONG time.

According to Wikipedia, they're just rolling it out.

Although that's Wikipedia, not the MediaWiki software in general...

 

[Soulweaver]

According to Wikipedia, they're just rolling it out.

Although that's Wikipedia, not the MediaWiki software in general...

MediaWiki's wiki = this. Not Wikipedia.

 

[Kogoro]

I hate to sound crude, but is it so hard to submit an edit request on the talk page? It seems like an extremely pointless feature, that is more open to blatant abuse than the "old way" of doing things for protected pages.

 

[Soulweaver]

I hate to sound crude, but is it so hard to submit an edit request on the talk page? It seems like an extremely pointless feature, that is more open to blatant abuse than the "old way" of doing things for protected pages.

I believe some edit requests are neglected just because no one happens to read their talk pages. Can't name a single incident but I remember this happening before.

 

[Zekurom]

I believe some edit requests are neglected just because no one happens to read their talk pages. Can't name a single incident but I remember this happening before.

Also, some edits are hard to describe. If you're planning on majorly revamping a page (like I did with the Damage formula page), it can be hell to read exactly what the person's going to edit.

*edit* BTW, I have an incident for you that still hasn't been resolved after about a month and a half. The link on the main Black and White article to the official site currently directs to http://www.pokemon.co.jp/bw/ when the actual page (which now redirects anyway, but it's inefficient) is http://www.pokemon-sp.jp/series/bw/.

 

[Transfinite]

I like this.

 

[Zekurom]

Since so many people are saying whether they like it or not, I put a poll up. Put your opinions there, too.

 

[Jello]

I don't think so. I bet you only 1% of these edits will actually be useful to the article, and it's totally opening the door for vandalism. They'll have a hay day creating all these logs for the admins to look at. It's a waste of time for those looking for that rare useful edit, when that time can be better spent elsewhere. I don't see what's wrong with going on the talk page, and if it really does get neglected, there's nothing stopping them from bringing up the topic again on the talk page. There's also the userspace for anyone who wants to create a mock-up or overhaul an article. Just because things work on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it'll work here.

 

[TTEchidna]

There's also the ability to, you know, tell us on our talk pages. Which I get enough of.

 

[Shiny Noctowl]

Edit requests on article talk pages will often go ignored for months.

 

[SmearglePaints]

It's a good feature. I was wanting to edit the Legendary Pokemon page for several months but couldn't because it was locked for a major overhaul, and my comments on the talk page went unanswered during the duration of that time. It's be immensely useful for similar situations on locked pages.

 

[Dialgarules]

...It's a waste of time for those looking for that rare useful edit, when that time can be better spent elsewhere...

Actually, I am mainly on Wikipedia now, and am a Reviewer (i.e. I review pending changes). It's not a waste of time; in fact I would say the ratio is about 50:50 to 40:60 for good to bad edits on a PC-protected page. Now, on Wikipedia, there is level 1 pending changes protection and level 2 pending changes protection. Only the level 1 protection is in use right now in a two month trial which I ends sometime in August. Level 1 protection puts the anonymous (IP) users through review, and autoconfirmed users' edits are visible immediately (or "automatically accepted"). Obviously this would be of no use to Bulbapedia, which prevents IP users from editing at all, and "questionable" additions are mainly a problem from autoconfirmed users.

Level 2 pending changes protection still allows anyone to edit, but only Administrators' and Reviewers' edits are automatically accepted. I am against this on Wikipedia because it would indeed cause yet another Wikipedia backlog. However, this could be a very useful alternative on Bulbapedia in place of full-protecting everything. The levels are basically an analogy to semi-protection and full-protection, however they still allow unconfirmed users to add content directly, while still having precautions against questionable, libelous, BLP vio, and other prohibited edits.

In conclusion, at least on Wikipedia, there is not a "rare useful edit", because many IP contributions can be very productive. I think it's a lot better than traditional protection also.

My username on Wikipedia is different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brandon5485 You can verify my status as a Reviewer at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=Brandon5485&group=&limit=1

 

[TaoistNeji]

I HATE THIS IDEA, I was just talking about this on another topic.

I've been on Wikipedia since 2006, I've made thousands of contributions to it, I admired Wikipedia for being a massive, public, free information collaboration. By making this "pending changes" thing they're:

1. Doing a 180 on what Wikipedia has been about from its beginning, reducing it to a regular website that only a few "important people" can edit, the rest of us become useless "suggestors" only who's information gathering abilities are apparently not as worthy.

2. Websites like that can be so slow to update, you have to wait for someone to get around to it.

3. They're going to severely restrict the amount of information being contributed to Wikipedia.

4. They're going to give their administrators even more work because now they'll have to oversee more pages and check all sources, do the investigating themselves on top of the other stuff administrators have to do.

5. So a SMALL PERCENTAGE of people occasionally vandalize something! It's easily reverted, most of us aren't about that and most of us have no problem fixing their nonsense or goodfaith accidents.

I'm gonna have to be more proactive against this on Wikipedia, I've noticed administrators bragging with their "this user has rollback and reviewer privileges" userboxes, I've been too busy to do act on this stuff, hope I'm not too late.

 

[immewnity]

I HATE THIS IDEA, I was just talking about this on another topic.

I've been on Wikipedia since 2006, I've made thousands of contributions to it, I admired Wikipedia for being a massive, public, free information collaboration. By making this "pending changes" thing they're:

1. Doing a 180 on what Wikipedia has been about from its beginning, reducing it to a regular website that only a few "important people" can edit, the rest of us become useless "suggestors" only who's information gathering abilities are apparently not as worthy.

2. Websites like that can be so slow to update, you have to wait for someone to get around to it.

3. They're going to severely restrict the amount of information being contributed to Wikipedia.

4. They're going to give their administrators even more work because now they'll have to oversee more pages and check all sources, do the investigating themselves on top of the other stuff administrators have to do.

5. So a SMALL PERCENTAGE of people occasionally vandalize something! It's easily reverted, most of us aren't about that and most of us have no problem fixing their nonsense or goodfaith accidents.

I'm gonna have to be more proactive against this on Wikipedia, I've noticed administrators bragging with their "this user has rollback and reviewer privileges" userboxes, I've been too busy to do act on this stuff, hope I'm not too late.

Nonononono. That's not how it is. The already-protected pages will go through a drafting process, where users can make changes to the page for admins to approve, similar to how some commenting programs work (YouTube and WordPress have this option). This won't restrict any editing.

And, #4, admins are already doing that. This just ensures they don't miss anything.

 

[Zekurom]

Not to mention, this is Bulbapedia we're talking about, not Wikipedia. The rules here are different.

And yes, basically what immewnity said. You're thinking of a mass application of the pending changes feature to all pages. That's not happening - only pages that are already protected will go through this process. If anything, it's aiming to decrease the level of protection on some pages.

 

[immewnity]

Not to mention, this is Bulbapedia we're talking about, not Wikipedia. The rules here are different.

And yes, basically what Sephiroth said. You're thinking of a mass application of the pending changes feature to all pages. That's not happening - only pages that are already protected will go through this process. If anything, it's aiming to decrease the level of protection on some pages.

Are you referring to my post? If so, since when am I Sephiroh?

 

[Zekurom]

Are you referring to my post? If so, since when am I Sephiroh?

AGH. Sorry, I did mean you. I'll change it right away.