Talk:En validation topics

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Gmaxwell in topic Fairness and NPOV

Possible others (David suggested I add them, it's all his fault):

Mornington Crescent satisfaction
  • Range 1-3
    • 1 = "Excellent"
    • 2 = "Good"
    • 3 = "Well-above average"
Virgin Trains satisfaction
  • Range 1-6
    • 1 = "Neither good nor bad"
    • 2 = "Poor"
    • 3 = "Very poor"
    • 4 = "Really extremely poor"
    • 5 = "Words begin to escape me as to quite how poor"
    • 6 = "Buttock-clenchingly piss-poor"

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/clue/clips/ram/isihac_mornington.ram :-)

James F. (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Links in topic descriptions edit

Are topic descriptions in wiki-syntax? In other words, can they contain wikilinks to explain jargon words or more complicated concepts? --Phil | Talk 08:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Dunno. Be good if they could. Note that the current implementation only includes the topic name and radio buttons for each number - not the long text descriptions of each number as listed here! - David Gerard 13:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Fairness and NPOV edit

The NPOV item should stand by itself and shouldn't be confused by combining it with fairness. We should probably remove the fairness item entirely, as it's not clear with fair means in this context beyond NPOV (which already demands the only kind of fairness we are really trying to provide). In fact the NPOV item should be stated as NPOV rather than neutrality, and have a "What is NPOV?" link next to it... Because the layman idea of neutrality doesn't exactly match NPOV... If we're going to have a technical (in that joe web user won't know what it means) criteria anywhere, it should be for NPOV. --Gmaxwell 03:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I implemented your suggestion. -- Beland 03:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How will it work? edit

I know validation has been discussed all over the place so have probably missed the killer answer to the following?

How will this work in practice? This is turning into a long questionnaire per revision of an article. Moreover the results are not going to be used for anything visible in the near-term, thus we miss the instant feedback that encourages users to participate. With these points in mind, I am worried that we won't get a monster pile of data to mess about with. (With >500k articles, "monster" means millions of entries?) My experience is coloured by the absolutely disasterous first attempt at article validation (turned on with no fanfare or instructions, a sub-optimal unclear implementation and then yanked just as people were starting to understand it).... so I could be being too pessimistic.... am I? Pcb21 12:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"absolutely disasterous first attempt at article validation" ... when was this? I was unaware of this! - David Gerard 10:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps Pete was refering to the recent changes patrol validation feature?
James F. (talk) 17:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For those who don't know, this was a feature briefly turned on at en, but disabled after a lot of complaints. Basically, users could mark a revision as "patrolled." --Slowking Man 01:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

How will this work in practice?

I think that's exactly the question the experimental trial will answer. If we get lots of data, then, yay. If we get barely any, then, lesson learned. Where were all these complaints posted? en:Wikipedia talk:RC patrol was very quiet on the matter. It seems rather odd that something that I presume people could just ignore if they want to was disabled, but it would be interesting to know why. -- Beland 04:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Return to "En validation topics" page.