Wikipedia talk:Revert notification opt-out
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Unsolicited testimonial
[edit]RNO has made my editing 37.86% happier and 42.3% less stressful.
Minor nitpick
[edit]@Tryptofish: please see Template talk:User RNO. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Neo-Luddism or the art of disconnection?
[edit]Peace of mind is a good thing. But does this mean that staying connected to technology is inherently stressful? Is this just one slippery step towards a device-free lifestyle? Is Tryptofish building a log cabin in the woods? Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to ask whether, if I did build it, would anybody hear? Obviously, you are taking the concept farther than I am, but I guess I just see it as using Wiki-tech more wisely. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, the more I chew on this cud, the more I wonder if the problem you describe is more a function of the interface. I imagine that there might be other ways to communicate the same idea without the sense of urgency. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- My theory is that it is, indeed, partly an interface problem, which is why I've suggested opting out of this particular interface feature – but that it's also a fundamental problem with Wikipedia. On the one hand, being able to revert stuff that needs to be reverted is right at the core of why Wikipedia hasn't simply been turned into a swamp of penis jokes, so it's an essential feature. On the other hand, reverting cannot escape having a dimension of being adversarial, no matter how much we try to deny that. In some ways, editing Wikipedia ends up being defined by how people constantly disagree with whatever one does. It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it's also the encyclopedia where anyone can be reverted. If I had to guess at what hasten-the-day will end up looking like, it will happen when some very smart young person somewhere figures out how to create an online encyclopedia where anyone can edit but somehow there is never a need to revert. I have no idea how that would work, but if someone figures that out, and someday, someone very likely will, then they will make Wikipedia obsolete in the way that refrigerator-size computer workstations are obsolete today. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: It's really quite simple, and interestingly, it dovetails nicely with toolset debundling, eliminating user rights as we know it. It would help to think of such a system with separate components all checking and balancing each other. One system would involve user-based moderation depending on a certain score, combined with reputation management and filters and bots which could adjust the score depending on their content detection abilities and other metrics. Basically, there would be no need to revert because certain edits would either be visible or hidden depending on the scoring. If you accumulate a certain number, new user rights become available, but quickly disappear if the score drops below a certain point. Those with a low content score would default to pending changes. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- My theory is that it is, indeed, partly an interface problem, which is why I've suggested opting out of this particular interface feature – but that it's also a fundamental problem with Wikipedia. On the one hand, being able to revert stuff that needs to be reverted is right at the core of why Wikipedia hasn't simply been turned into a swamp of penis jokes, so it's an essential feature. On the other hand, reverting cannot escape having a dimension of being adversarial, no matter how much we try to deny that. In some ways, editing Wikipedia ends up being defined by how people constantly disagree with whatever one does. It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it's also the encyclopedia where anyone can be reverted. If I had to guess at what hasten-the-day will end up looking like, it will happen when some very smart young person somewhere figures out how to create an online encyclopedia where anyone can edit but somehow there is never a need to revert. I have no idea how that would work, but if someone figures that out, and someday, someone very likely will, then they will make Wikipedia obsolete in the way that refrigerator-size computer workstations are obsolete today. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, the more I chew on this cud, the more I wonder if the problem you describe is more a function of the interface. I imagine that there might be other ways to communicate the same idea without the sense of urgency. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Rating
[edit]Who rate's this stuff? I would have rated this as inconsequential. But then again someone rated Wikibullying as having little to no impact when that's clearly untrue too! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- This is the edit: [1]. These ratings are subjective, and really do not matter to our readers. And whether any given editor does or does not find the essay useful is even more subjective. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)