User:WereSpielChequers/sandbox

~


 * Part of the problem is that we are using the word cosmetic to mean almost the opposite of its normal meaning. We really need a policy that bots and minor edits are fine provided they make at least a cosmetic change, i.e. the page has a visible difference. Of course

This is an OK article, despite having plenty of errors. "Disputes end only when an arrangement acceptable to all participants is reached." Is not true, consensus does mean that some people are overruled, and Wikipedia would be a worse site if everyone could veto anything, "Liberum veto" hath disadvantages. Technically it is true that the community of editors doing over 100 edits a month has shrunk by over a third in the last 7 years; But it is also very misleading, many of those active editors in 2007 would have been fighting the sort of vandalism that now is dealt with by edit filters without generating edits. As for the idea that this surprisingly small group of people write Wikipedia, this underestimates the importance of the much large group of regulars who edit less frequently. Raw edit count is one thing, with nearly a third of edits to Wikipedia done by just 10,000 accounts,

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burned by the Sun.jpg
 * show_img = yes:::Addendum, today was a good example of expert outreach, we had an ed

itathon which included some Art Nouveau experts, including a museum curator and an Art Nouveau expert from a major London Auction House. The net change to articles might not have been huge, but things moved in both directions. We removed three images from the Art Nouveau article because they were Art Deco not Art Nouveau; Just as importantly we left in a lot of images because they belong. I am not sure how to measure such quality gain. Of course one possibility would be to have some process of credentialling experts and then having them sign off particular versions of particular articles as being of a particular standard, but I feel that would clash with our editing culture, whereas having some edits take place with substandard stuff removed and referenced sentences added is uncontentiously positive. We can of course measure things by the production of audited content such as DYK's, however I'm wary of doing so and not just because of the differing standards by project. I'm not sufficiently wary to dissuade participants from going down that route if they happen to be DYK writers who attend an editathon and think that one or two DYKs from each editathon they attend is a good way to keep DYK diverse in topic. But we should be aware of the experience of Gibraltarpedia, neither a GLAM project nor a Wikimedia UK project, but one where, and there are  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that resolving more edit conflicts requires MediaWiki changes, but as WhatAmIDoing admitted in that thread a "problem" with editing the whole page in VisualEditor is that it's very tempting to fix a problem that you see out of your area". That's why section editing is a good way to reduce your risk of edit conflicts. Of course section editing can only happen after we have sections; that's why some of the easiest ways to make the pedia less bitey would be to reduce edit conflicts at New Page patrol. If we changed mediawiki either to prepopulate new articles with a few basic headings such as references, or to not treat categorisation or templating as an edit conflict with text editing then New Pages would be much less bitey. Another known "won't fix" problem with V/E is that it is slow, especially, and this is a "Won't fix" the really newbie biting ones such as

test logged out::Errh, regardless of the argument that edit filters, faster vandalism reversion, the move of intrawiki links to wikidata and indeed the rise of wikidata all mean that we can't compare current editing levels to past ones and we don't really knowhttps://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm

IP test