313:
1798:.) PC was meant to change the way we protect articles in such a manner that Knowledge is more open to IP contributors, and to protect minor articles (like low traffic BLPs) that IP's make major contributions to, and are thus unsuitable for Semi-protection. Two months was not a long enough period to test PC, thus the lack of and conclusive research, the time period simply was not statistically significant. Reviewers had to learn how to use PC, Admins needed to learn which pages PC worked on, thus the initial troubles (along with the technical problems that PC 2.0 should fix). PC is a tool, that like semi-protection can be used to protect pages, but it doesn't stop IPs from editing like semi-protection does. Remember, IP's make 20% of Good Faith edits, and only 30% of all IP edits are vandalism. To address problems with the poll itself, the polling period was far too short, more editors needed to be involved, because with the way it was, only editors who care one way or another about PC voted (with several exceptions). That
340:
1837:
asking us to understand and apply a concept that has no form or function. How were we supposed to do that. Moreover, the results on individual level are striking: no single PC option on support has a majority. I am not for pending changes, I admit that, but in the interest of fairness I will point out that for this to work on here in any capacity we need to disable pending changes, sit down, have a long conversation with the community about what went right and what went wrong, tweak the PC option, then conduct another trial on a controlled group of articles to see if the improved version of PC if properly applied would actually help the articles it was being applied to. For the time being, and RFC would help with sit down and have a long conversation with the community part of my plan outlined above. If nothing else, it would be a sign of good faith between disagreeing parties here.
2094:
have PC in any form, despite some clearly stating that they preferred option 1 over some other options, but it's not okay to assume that they oppose the other options (even after I read through the entire support column and made sure I wasn't counting anyone who explicitly stated they supported the other options too), I'm glad you agree. The original trial was a two-month trial, it was made clear it would be switched off after two months to allow for review, not that there would be a poll to extend it. This is a POLL, I think it's sad that one of the biggest technical changes to the way
Knowledge works in possible the last couple of years, is being rushed through with a poll. You can't judge community support like that, and the trial shouldn't be extended based on that. Especially when that poll is rigged to show a larger support for PC then there actually is. I just gave you three
301:
325:
2064:
stated they also support the other options. Something which you have not, as if you had you would see that some users have also explicitly stated they are opposed to the other options). I'm not saying that I think that my count should be used as the final tally, I'm just trying to show that we shouldn't have a messed up poll (like this one) and then ASSUME that people are in support of certain options. Because the problem with assuming is that you can assume either way (as I have shown). I've tried to make it very clear how I counted up the supports/opposes for each separate option, something which has not been made clear for the final tally. I think there is a bit of a "blindfold" being pulled in front of the eyes of the community here, and I'm just trying to present a bit more data, a bit more clearly. -
899:: In response to complaints about the system's complexity—particularly the user interface—he agreed that the current iteration was "rough around the edges", but was hopeful it would integrate better with user experience over time, and work like traditional page protection now. On this basis, he has already asked the foundation to keep Pending Changes enabled, to streamline the interface, and "to increase the hard-coded limit of pages as the performance characteristics of the system allow it." He suggested a six-month waiting period, and proposed inviting opposers to provide feedback in the hope that by "working together, we can build a system and policies that have even broader support, similar to page protection and user blocking today."
2000:
fixing as well. Sure, there are some editors who are opposed to it on principal, and that wouldn't be "fixable" as such. But the bulk of the opposition (including some opposed to it in principal) are not saying "Shut it down, RAWR!", and I don't think you should be representing the opposition like that, when many of them have given valid reasons for opposing. I also think that while we reach a compromise and improve PC, it should not be used in articles. This whole PC thing seems to have been a headlong charge, without actually stopping to think. There has been no proper centralised discussion on it, the trial was implemented through a poll (<not consensus), then kept in because the devs
1608:
support" seems to get used as a justification for almost completely ignoring the opposes, despite it being clear that we don't use majority support at
Knowledge (take a look at AfD, RfA, RfB etc.). That pending changes wasn't turned of after the trial expired shows that the "people at the top" had already decided that this was here to stay, and Jimbo's "evaluation" reads more as a personal opinion then a proper representation of the community. Anyway, I did a bit of my own research into the poll, if we take every vote, and unless there is an explicit support for an option, we assume it's an oppose to that option (e.g.
2079:
has been extended on that strong support. Seems pretty reasonable. Jimbo asked multiple times for examples which would indicate that retaining PC-protection is causing problems on some article or another. I don't believe there was ever a direct response to that. If there's insignificant evidence of PC causing problems, then it seems pretty respectful of the strong support for PC to extend the trial. I've asked many, many, many times for compromise proposals from opposers, and just about every single response I got was based on "shut it down". Seems like we could be far more focused on specific problems....
866:. Wales said his intent was to communicate the community's desires to the Foundation and not to act as a final authority on the matter. There is "absolutely no consensus for simply turning the system off and walking away", he said, citing the result of the poll (65/35% Support/Oppose, despite the large number of contributors who opposed the structure of the poll itself). He conceded there has been substantial, vocal, and articulate opposition to using a system of this kind at all, or to using it in its current form, and addressed three concerns:
1060:
117:
107:
446:
33:
127:
87:
90:
137:
97:
1299:
below, "there seems to be the idea here (and Jimbo seems to think it too) that there are two parties, and you have to end up upsetting one, so why not upset the smaller one? However, this is not how consensus should work. I think both "parties" need to be much more willing to compromise, so we can reach a solution which encompasses everybody's ideas." -
291:
duplicates, and thus require human review before a mass-upload to
Wikimedia Commons. Nonetheless, many interesting images, such as educational diagrams, novel illustrations, scientific schematics, portraits, and maps, were obtained. The team is currently investigating the possibility of making the files available to Wikisource contributors.
952:), Conference organization, several grants, media and social media coverage, and contact with a group of librarians "who want to start an initiative to systematically improve Knowledge content on the topics they find important." The Argentinian report covered several representative and board meetings (including one with representatives of
1612:= oppose 3). Then we get these results (bear in mind that this is something of an estimation, since, despite careful examination of the supports, I may have missed some explicit supports of other options. I won't vouch for this being completely accurate, and if you want to verify it you'll need to look at the poll yourself):
2127:". NONE of these points us to an article where we can find and view for ourselves indications of these problems. Moreover, it's been beaten to death that Pending Change is FAR SUPERIOR to the {{editprotected}} process that newcomers are forced to endure when the lack of PC-protection forces admins to use Page Protection.
110:
2258:
contain copyvio text, not 10% of Darius's total edits. It's not clear if that's based on only the 10k created (which would mean about 1000 vios), or 23k significantly edited (which would mean around 2300 vios). I don't think anyone expects the minor edits to contain vios, but checking this stuff is
2174:
is a better system. My responses where, as I pointed out earlier, "all things which could be fixed", not neccasairly reasons for shutting pending changes down. Again, as I said earlier, the opposition were not given any option except from to support the proposal to shut it down, due to the poor poll
2098:
reasons PC is harmful, picked out from the comments at the poll, displaying large problems with PC, and yet you seem to have suddenly gone deaf, and still insist that everybody's response is "based on 'shut it down'" and I'm not focused on specific issues? Try actually responding to me message please
1339:
sides, rather than just making sure the majority is happy. I don't even know why we have sides in the first place, it would be easier to make sure everyone is listening to each other, if you didn't dump them into two different sections which just increases hostility/competition, rather than promoting
908:
a quick poll to determine what to do pending the availability of version 2.0, saying he has asked the
Foundation for a firm schedule and will report back when he hears from them. The two proposed options for the poll would be to stop using the feature altogether or use it only on an evaluation basis.
892:
indicate that there is still much to learn. Noting that PC does not work as well on high-traffic pages, he said it seemed to be effective on such articles as those dealing with current events. Referring to supporters' suggestions that the feature could be applied to determine if a page is eligible to
214:
The breakdown according to global region is similar between edits and views, but there were striking differences within the statistics: Europeans contribute 51% of edits and 35% of views, whereas North
Americans contribute 23% of all edits and 38% of all views. A respondent to the blog post suggested
2037:
supporters is asanine, as it is almost certain that most of the people supporting one of the options would find other "Support" options acceptable, even if their preference was for one. I can personally attest to that being the case for me. I, personally, noted my support for what I believed to be
2004:
decide to tell us they can't take it out, another arguably rigged poll is then used as justification to keep it in (again not consensus, and gives the impression this is a competition, and since the supporters have "won", the opposition is not important). I think by turning it off, and spending some
1999:
you'd see that opposes have still managed to voice some of the problems they have with PC anyway, for example, it's slow, complicated for new comers, has poor review guidelines etc., all of which are things which could be fixed, and are all things the majority of the supporters would seem to support
1701:
50% support, so simply claiming a majority is in support is misleading. Also, I don't see how this poll could be interpreted as a decision to keep PC running until a second trial, since it didn't even have the option of turning it off until a second trial is organised. Maybe because there is a false
1191:
Duncan is completely wrong about that. I am not dismissive of community consensus at all. I think consensus is necessary to make this a permanent feature. I have at no time said or suggested in any way anything like what he is claiming. Full stop. 65% of the votes were in favor of it, and there
2078:
I reviewed the poll discussion in-depth. From my review, the overwhelming support for PC is clear, even despite your .... interesting view on the segregated results. As for the "end of the trial" ... we had a two-month trial, and found significant support for PC in some fashion. The trial of PC
1941:
I find it very depressing to see that PC is going to be continued despite what seems to be no consensus for it to continue at the current time. My rationale for not supporting its continuation was its rather broken state-- I felt that the interface was confusing, and it didn't do what it set out to
1793:
What needs to be considered is the fact that all of the individuals who voted for the keep options want PC kept, while they might not agree on exactly what form, they do agree that it needs to stay. Unfortunately, the vote came very, very close to 2/3, which means that either a significant majority
1470:
Well the point of a vote is to determine the views of a cross section of a population, however, only fifty two thousandths of a percent of active
Wikipedians cast !votes, all we can say is that of 52/1000 of a percent of active Wikipedians, 65% want PC in some form, and only 35% want it off in some
1236:
So why not ask for a vote specifically on continuing the trial? As for trying to impose PC, you kicked the whole thing off by announcing (on your talk page, instead of in any of the more proper fora, but then that's par for the course for you) that you were going to ask the
Foundation (of which you
2294:
This could be a problem for many other projects, too. Many smaller projects just copy/translate articles from the
English WP, without checking for copyvios (or errors). So the copyvios could have already been copied to dozens of other projects. But unlike the German Knowledge, those projects don't
2246:
A lot of the articles don't seem to be copyright problems because they contain very little text (in some cases none at all), just lists of names and events and other such statistics. Darius wasn't big on writing prose, but he was quite skillful at table formatting, so many of his articles were in
2093:
If you would post your review maybe we could examine it, rather than listening to you repeatedly claiming that there is overwhelming support for PC, without any evidence. Yes, I think it's very interesting too, that it's apparently okay to assume that anybody in the support column thinks we should
2060:
Thanks for your reply, to respond to some of your points. I don't think I'm strongly requesting that PC be shut down here, I'm requesting that in a two month trial, the trial is ended after two months, yes. I also believe I'm displaying reasons as to why I think this, not just saying "Shut it down
1899:
Also in reply to Ronk01 ;). Not all the people in the support column supported PC in any form, many specifically stated they preferred option 1 over some of the other options. Also, there seems to be the idea here (and Jimbo seems to think it too) that there are two parties, and you have to end up
1673:
Firstly your "count" is an extremely biased example of why individuals with a strong POV should never count votes. (Look what happened in
Florida in 2000)I would remind you that the straw poll has been reinterpreted as a decision to keep PC running until a second straw poll which would be a simple
1432:
Your analysis was shaky at best. It was decided that the support sections would be lumped into one option for simplicity. And before you say that there were editors who said that they would vote for option one over any option but theirs, I checked, and those votes, if moved to oppose, do little to
881:
for anonymous edits, the trial had shown that for these particular pages "the workload of vetting edits and the polluted edit history weigh greater than the benefit of the system." However, he continues to believe that the system is useful for opening problematic pages to unrestricted editing, and
2063:
Okay, it's not my fault that this poll was poorly set up. You want to count it up assuming that anyone supporting option 2, 3 or 4, also supports the other options. I have counted it up as assuming that they don't (although I've also actually READ through the poll, to see if users have explicitly
1865:
Ronk01, keep in mind that there is an even larger group whose opinion needs to be considered: the rest of the
Knowledge community who did not vote. While it would be simple to dismiss them for being "apathetic", I believe many of them are, in fact, interested but hanging back to see just how this
1455:
Yes but the editors who we are actually looking at, are those who haven't stated their opinion on PC, and it's being assumed that they support it in any form. As I said way down below " it's apparently okay to assume that anybody in the support column thinks we should have PC in any form, despite
1298:
Yeah, but you keep saying you care about consensus, and then you immediately say that the "65% support" means that there is consensus to keep it. Which isn't what I think consensus is about at all. Just because some users were in the minority doesn't mean they can be ignored. To quote myself from
1836:
That's easy: we open an rfc and let the community speak for itself. As to your conjecture that the PC trial came too soon, I agree. It should have been implemented with strict parameters and on predetermined articles to see how things would work. Releasing this to us in its current form was like
1172:
Wales has been one of the most outspoken cheerleaders for Pending Changes (or whatever it's being called at the moment), it is impossible for him to act as a neutral mouthpiece for the community in this matter. His dismissive comments on his talk-page about the need for consensus suggest that he
1870:
will be very angry -- & there are far more of them than participated in this "straw vote" for or against it. It appeared that everyone involved was moving towards a do-over of this step of the process (it would not be hard to do better than a "straw poll" with four competing options), until
1221:
I strongly support that we vote on features like this, and I think that 65% is not enough to make it permanent. I have not fiddle a two-month trail into an indefinite continuation of changes, nor have I been trying to "impose" any changes at all, not now, and not "for ages". It would be best,
290:
The BnF's OCR files, which indicate the position of each word and all graphical elements such as illustrations in the books, allowed extraction of more than 22,000 image files, although many of them may be useless (detection errors, mere black lines), of limited interest (stamps, vignettes), or
1523:
numbers no single option has more than 50% support, which poses a problem since any attempt to create unity by ignoring options will result in shift by the supporters in a neglected camp either a different camp, or to the oppose camp. Should the opposes then start to gain momentum its entirely
1607:
I'm rather disgusted by the whole way pending changes is being implemented, the supporters seem to care only for the number of users in the support and oppose sections, and not what those users are actually saying. I think it's ignoring consensus and based only on numbers. Also, the "majority
1206:
You've previously been very dismissive of voting, and you yourself have said that 65% is not enough... it seems your principles change to suit the result you've always wanted. You were entirely the wrong person to interpret the poll to the Foundation. You've fiddled a two-month trial into an
1771:. Providing a rationale for the change would make it easier for those of us -- like me, until now -- who have no strong opinion on the matter to accept the change, instead of suspecting this to be little more than a public relations stunt which will not benefit Knowledge in the long run. --
375:
1762:
reasoning -- for implementing it. We're not talking hands here; supposedly consensus on Knowledge is not determined by number of votes. What we're talking about here are persuasive arguments for or against making changes. About the only analysis of this experiment that has been done is
2005:
time reviewing, will make the opposition feel like they're not being ignored for once. Also, you claim a majority are in support of PC, and yet out of all the users who voted on this poll, no single option was voted for by more than 50% of them, again showing that this poll was bias. -
1130:
903:
Wales also took part in the ensuing discussion and responded to the comments on his page. Community members expressed their views following his statement on their concerns, suggesting an alternative straw poll for the future and discussing ways to resolve the issue in the meantime.
130:
100:
140:
2250:
The bot's initial run will blank only the 10,000 articles Darius created. A subsequent run to get the other 13,000 of the significantly edited articles will take more complex programming and is still under discussion. The remaining 17,000 won't be affected unless something
2163:
What I gave were specific problems with PC on the whole, which were causing problems on ALL the aritcles where it has been implemented. I beleive the Barack Obama article had a few problems with PC, since you want an article. At least some of the opposes seem to think that
1518:
stacked in favor of the support camp since they had multiple options for support whereas the oppose camp had only one choice. Why no one wants to go back and actually tally the 'support on option x' figures is beyond me, but I would be willing to bet then when you look at
1009:, the Wikimedia Foundation's Chief Global Development Officer, have been posted. A large part of the conversation related to the Foundation's plans in India, which Newstead is visiting this month to prepare the opening of the first Foundation office outside the US (see
873:: "I believe Pending Changes, used properly, can make Knowledge more open if used on pages that would otherwise be put under some other form of protection." He acknowledged that while he had hoped that Pending Changes would make it possible to open up articles like
1558:
Not when the poll is purposely designed to skew in favour of implementing pending changes. You may be able to fool some people, but not the rest of us. Plus, who says simple majority is consensus? Knowledge doesn't work by going with simple majority votes.
925:
the hiring of Cyn Skyberg for the position of "Chief Talent and Culture Officer" (CTCO). She will be responsible for the coordination of Wikimedia's human resources and organizational, developmental, and recruiting strategies. The position was originally
312:
1702:
belief among the supporters of PC that the opposition only want PC turned off completely, never to return, and are unwilling to compromise? When in truth plenty of people want it turned off for now, while problems are fixed, and then on again once it
1471:
form. We can not go around saying that there is no consensus for PC, since a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction voted! In reality, this resembles one of the petty content disputes that I mediate, not a logical discussion of a new feature that
1237:
are a trustee) to turn it on, without any attempt at the time to gain consensus. You have been the main driving force behind this proposal from the start, you cannot possibly act as an unbiased interpreter of a confusing and malformed poll.
401:
responsible for the mass blanking, the infringements were "on quite a large scale, and with a regular pattern." All articles created by Darius Dhlomo are now suspect and need to be reviewed for potential copyright infringement. The bot will
1900:
upsetting one, so why not upset the smaller one? However, this is not how consensus should work. I think both "parties" need to be much more willing to compromise, so we can reach a solution which encompasses everybody's ideas. -
1994:
That's rich. A poll is set up and the only option for people who don't like PC is "shut it down completely", then you complain about users opposing it only saying they want it shut down? If you'd actually take a look through the
1921:
I agree that an RFC is needed, along with a drive to get more community participation. I would however contend that, like any debate of this size, there are users who are absolutely unwilling to compromise on PC, on both sides.
339:
1354:
Not sure how you can argue that 65% isn't a majority, it might be 1% away from consensus, but it is a majority. Besides that, it is impossible to make any moves until later today, when the timetables fro release are posted.
1027:
in its July meeting. The group is tasked with "clarifying the roles of different parts of the Wikimedia network and movement", with the goal of drafting a "Wikimedia Charter". It held its first conference call last week; a
300:
1733:
it: independent of the true total no option did have 50% support. For my part I would demand an rfc on the outcome and a recount so we can get an actual, factual read out of the PC system rather than an a rigged poll.
1385:
At this point, the best thing to do with PC (until the second straw poll) is to leave everything as it is, to turn it off would mean semi-protecting half a million articles, and thus making Knowledge less accessible.
249:
221:
North America, Europe, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, and a few associated countries account for 81% of total views plus edits, with 46% of the world's internet population and just 19% of the world population.
1576:
That those who oppose PC seem to think that they can discount the opinion of 65% of people who weighted in I find a little strange. I thank Jimbo for stepping in and supporting the opinion of those in the
270:
files that were uploaded on Wikimedia Commons in July. The heavy compression used in conversion of image files to DjVu resulted in a substantial loss of quality. Since the support of TIFF was imminent (see
1475:
caused any major disturbances that were not fixed within seconds. We need more editors involved, and we need to have a community discussion, not a squabble among a few diehard advocates of their position.
383:
1871:
Wales' impudent claim that everyone was for Pending changes -- well, everyone whose opinion matters to him. He obviously wants it, whether or not it works. Or whether anyone understands how to use it. --
2193:
of the poll. I'm still interested to see whether any of the opposers have any other possibilities in mind. I came to this thread hoping that this would be a possible place to find such alternatives.
1173:
would have found some way to turn the two-month trial into something more permanent whatever the numbers were. It's time the Foundation realised that Wales does not represent the community in any way.
422:
324:
67:
231:
1758:
What has me concerned -- & is pushing me towards opposing pending changes entirely -- is that no one in favor of leaving PC on has provided a convincing reasoning -- or frankly,
982:. Active participants had "floated the notion" that there should be an oversight committee for several years; interest was reignited during the run-up to this year's Wikimania (see
426:
792:
701:
675:
591:
500:
474:
1094:
276:
1653:
I used a .NET C# program to store the data ("voter" class with four booleans for each option) anyone who would like to use it just ask me, and I can try to format it for you. -
73:
2322:
1293:
949:
831:
805:
766:
753:
740:
714:
662:
630:
604:
565:
552:
539:
513:
461:
280:
2304:
688:
487:
2023:
So ... you are here pretty strongly requesting PC to be shut down, and you're also objecting to my characterization of the opposition's demands to "Shut it down RAWR"....?
1246:
1231:
1216:
1201:
407:
1942:
do (let IPs edit high traffic articles). I feverishly object to this being forced down on us, and I'd welcome an RfC which didn't have a flawed straw poll method to it.
1308:
1145:
1109:
433:
article can help spread the word about user involvement in resolving the issue. Uncle G says this mountain can be moved "by a thousand teaspoons all digging together."
2141:... which only affirms my statement that all of the opposers keep proposing that we shut it down. Certainly there have been rationales given for shutting it down, but
1539:
It has been decided that a simple majority will be sufficient to keep PC running until PC 2.0 has been released, assuming tha tthe timetable for release is reasonable.
960:, the third anniversary of Wikimedia Argentinia, media coverage, and other topics. The Hong Kong report covered the third annual Anniversary Conference, involvement in
818:
779:
617:
578:
2202:
2184:
2158:
2108:
2088:
2073:
2055:
2014:
1569:
1274:
1114:
1104:
1020:
983:
1029:
1909:
1846:
1743:
1662:
1489:
1465:
1450:
1427:
1368:
1349:
1326:
1119:
945:
1948:
1880:
1819:
1780:
120:
1687:
1598:
2284:
1099:
1968:
224:
Monthly requests from China are 10 times lower than average (one in 10 views and one in 14 edits) than its population would suggest, given the average for Asia.
2033:
Yes there was an option with majority support... that being the option of "keep PC in some fashion" received 65% support. Using the breakout of support levels
1764:
1418:
Because the poll was biased... and as I said before, no single option was voted for by 50% of the voters, even allowing editors to vote for multiple options -
1047:
1038:
937:
189:
2264:
1278:
2288:
1089:
1077:
1010:
436:
1182:
927:
1533:
284:
1988:
1071:
52:
41:
1935:
1552:
1399:
2132:
I've asked many, many, many times for compromise proposals from opposers, and just about every single response I got was based on "shut it down"
2061:
RAWR" (which implies I don't care about trying to reason, and just have my own opinion and don't care to discuss it, clearly (I hope) not true).
2046:
would be grouped, as any other interpretation of the poll would be nonsensical, given that a simple 2-option poll was the obvious alternative.
387:
1806:
Wikipedians are represented. Of course, Straw polls do not establish consensus, but how do we have a discussion between thousands of editors?
1456:
some clearly stating that they preferred option 1 over some other options, but it's not okay to assume that they oppose the other options"? -
378:. Copy-pasted articles brought to light numbered almost 10,000 creations and possibly 25,000 infringements. Consensus was established for the
390:
of his article edits. Most of the articles are very short tabular stubs with little prose, explaining how they were not noticed for so long.
2227:
Hi, I'm involved in that cleanup project and some of the statistics in the Signpost summary got mixed up. The correct picture seems to be:
2391:
1331:
I'm not saying we should ignore what you claim is a majority, I'm simply saying that you shouldn't ignore what appears to be the minority,
350:
1975:
I haven't seen a single attempt at compromise other than "Shut it down, RAWR!". Any of the folks opposed to PC want to suggest an actual
1956:
1795:
1002:
930:
but was renamed so as to show "a strong focus on helping Wikimedia grow and sustain an organizational culture consistent with its values."
371:
2113:
It's a bit odd that you believe people "have suddenly gone deaf", when your responses didn't seem very relevant to my actual statements.
215:
that the relatively mature stage of the English Knowledge may cause its edit rate to be lower than those of foreign-language Wikipedias.
367:
1150:
1700:
Erm... care to explain how a simple count can be biased? All I'm trying to show is that no single option at the straw poll got : -->
905:
1157:
21:
855:
2366:
1794:
gets angry, or a minority gets angry. PC was released too early, it has flaws. But flaws can be fixed (in fact take a look at
2361:
2356:
2335:
2118:
Jimbo asked multiple times for examples which would indicate that retaining PC-protection is causing problems on some article
1996:
1270:
859:
418:
237:
2351:
258:
A team of three volunteers from Wikimédia France then retrieved high-resolution image files (in the lossless but bulky
168:
1866:
process will end. If it appears that the process was rigged & Pending changes would be adopted, willy-nilly, then
893:
be moved from semi-protected to unprotected status, he said it all argued for further careful exploration of the tool.
2280:
1514:
IMO, calling the 65/35% Support/Oppose statistic in favor of implementing pending changes is bullsh*t; that poll was
889:
398:
363:
1024:
185:
359:
177:
971:
957:
2346:
1590:
1059:
46:
32:
17:
2189:
Well ... the poll clearly had its problems. However, "shut it down" is the proposed move that I get even
941:
240:(BnF, the National Library of France), to make about 1,400 public domain books from their digital library
992:
2316:
2237:
Darius made significant (non-minor) edits to about 23,000 articles including the 10,000 described above
2295:
import the version histories of translated articles, so there's no easy way to find these articles. --
2254:
Manual review of some the affected articles indicate that about 10% (depending on who you ask) of the
1222:
Duncan, if you pay attention to the facts here, rather than simply making up things out of thin air.--
1134:
2222:
909:
Rob Lanphier from the Foundation has advised that he will make a timeline available by September 17.
184:
blog, a site dedicated to Wikimedia statistics). The analysis, similar to an earlier one focusing on
1594:
975:
259:
819:
Hoaxes in France and at university, Knowledge used in Indian court, Is Knowledge a cult?, and more
728:
Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes
618:
Hoaxes in France and at university, Knowledge used in Indian court, Is Knowledge a cult?, and more
527:
Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes
331:
68:
Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes
1166:
425:
will require that editors review the copyright infringements and turn them into proper articles.
154:
2168:
1959:, where she suggested holding another office hour specifically about Pending Changes. Regards,
663:
Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends
462:
Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends
2028:
no single option was voted for by more than 50% of them, again showing that this poll was bias
306:
Map of the battlefield between the Mincio and the Adige during the French Revolution (in 1796)
2300:
1565:
1524:
possible that the opposition will end up outnumbering the support camp. Just an observation.
1227:
1197:
227:
In India, 94% of page views and 78% of edits of all Wikipedias are for the English Knowledge.
2372:
1289:
1266:
1242:
1212:
1178:
964:, annual fundraising preparations, the Wikimedia Asia Conference, and the General Assembly.
863:
767:
Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more
566:
Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more
414:. The articles he created will not be deleted, but the bot will blank the page completely.
207:. While not perfectly accurate, the analysis does reveal several important editing trends:
922:
218:
Of all Wikipedias, the English Knowledge received 51% of page views and 41% of page edits.
8:
2311:
2270:
2180:
2104:
2069:
2010:
1905:
1842:
1739:
1711:
1658:
1529:
1461:
1423:
1345:
1304:
406:
every article to the version immediately prior to Darius Dhlomo's first edit, based on a
150:
689:
The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
488:
The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
2198:
2154:
2084:
2051:
1984:
1979:(instead of repeating their desire to trample the wishes of the significant majority)?
1769:
no one who started this test had any idea of how to evaluate it as a success or failure
832:"Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more
631:"Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more
403:
355:
1802:
an acceptable way to poll, neutral editors are needed to ensure that the interests of
1192:
was significant dissent requiring further attention before we can hold a final vote.--
1876:
1776:
1141:
806:
Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Knowledge project concludes, brief news
780:
Knowledge better than Britannica, Pending changes as a victory of tradition, and more
715:
French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more
605:
Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Knowledge project concludes, brief news
579:
Knowledge better than Britannica, Pending changes as a victory of tradition, and more
514:
French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more
411:
358:, a Knowledge contributor with more than 163,000 edits dating back to 2005, has been
1006:
2296:
2267:
though it is getting sort of unwieldy and maybe it should be digested/reorganized.
1930:
1814:
1682:
1586:
1560:
1547:
1484:
1445:
1394:
1363:
1321:
1223:
1193:
196:
173:
1285:
1238:
1208:
1174:
961:
393:
Manual repair efforts faltered due to the sheer number of articles. According to
1207:
indefinite continuation of the changes you have been trying to impose for ages.
2176:
2100:
2065:
2006:
1964:
1901:
1838:
1735:
1707:
1654:
1525:
1457:
1419:
1341:
1300:
948:, have been published. The Hungarian report covered the first ever "WikiCamp" (
912:
874:
379:
295:
Sample of image files obtained (JPEG version, since TIFF is still not deployed)
158:
2149:
has invariably been to shut it down. Do opposers not see any other routes????
2385:
2194:
2150:
2080:
2047:
1980:
754:
Pending changes poll, Public policy classes, Payment schemes debate, and more
553:
Pending changes poll, Public policy classes, Payment schemes debate, and more
345:
Average daily number of marriages in Switzerland by month, from 1906 to 1910.
200:
382:
of all confirmed and suspected infringements by the user (about 17,000; see
2274:
1943:
1872:
1772:
1674:
yes or no vote over whether to keep PC turned on until PC 2.0 is released.
953:
878:
394:
236:
In April, the French chapter Wikimédia France signed an agreement with the
2240:
Darius made edits (minor or otherwise) to a total of about 40,000 articles
1923:
1807:
1675:
1578:
1540:
1477:
1438:
1387:
1356:
1314:
979:
211:
On average, Wikimedia projects received 2000 views per edit in July 2010.
204:
1313:
But it is patent nonsense to ignore a substantial majority, is it not?
741:
Pending changes analyzed, Foundation report, Main page bias, brief news
540:
Pending changes analyzed, Foundation report, Main page bias, brief news
245:
1335:
that it's a minority. We need to try to address points raised by both
1960:
162:
2125:
it's slow, complicated for new comers, has poor review guidelines
283:), all of the original, high-resolution TIFF files were uploaded
241:
2243:
Almost all the articles were about athletes or athletic events
180:
an analysis of page edits on all Wikipedias by region (on his
232:
Wikimédia France partnership with the French National Library
2137:
And your response was that you gave a lot of rationales for
1767:, whose primary point -- whether intended or not -- is that
267:
2309:
A few post publication corrections are in order: thanks.
995:
statistics have been published for the English Knowledge.
263:
181:
2231:
Darius did about 163k edits but a lot of them were minor
882:
should be further refined and tweaked for that purpose.
2038:
most appealing option, since it was pretty clear that
1765:
Knowledge:Pending changes/Metrics/Preliminary Analysis
658:
858:, having been asked to interpret the results of the
195:), was based on a 1 in 1000 sampling of Knowledge's
2265:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/CCI
1263:does not represent the community in any way. Joy.
1155:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
318:
Device to measure the elastic force of vapor (1854)
2383:
2277:are the main principals in this, more or less.
2234:Darius created slightly under 10,000 articles
928:advertised as "Chief Human Resources Officer"
148:
2123:To which you referenced your comment that, "
1955:The topic was also discussed in yesterday's
888:: On doubts about effectiveness, Wales said
793:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
702:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
592:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
501:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
417:This short-term solution to the problem was
287:at the end of August, for future reference.
437:Jimbo weighs in on the Pending changes poll
421:on the project-wide watchlist notice; the
370:on the user's talk page, the incident was
330:Portrait of the 18th-century French actor
1284:I don't recall ever claiming that I did.
956:), the bicentennial of the start of the
1158:
936:: Three Wikimedia Chapter reports, for
14:
2384:
2334:Explore Knowledge history by browsing
1003:log for the August 31 IRC Office hours
397:, managing administrator and coder of
351:Mass blanking of copyright violations
51:
1259:DuncanHill should realise that that
376:contributor copyright investigations
2392:Knowledge Signpost archives 2010-09
919:Chief human resources officer hired
727:
526:
27:
1058:
856:Announcement about Pending Changes
837:
824:
811:
798:
785:
772:
759:
746:
733:
720:
707:
694:
681:
668:
636:
623:
610:
597:
584:
571:
558:
545:
532:
519:
506:
493:
480:
467:
444:
53:
31:
28:
2403:
2263:The main info/discussion page is
1957:IRC office hours with Sue Gardner
1140:These comments are automatically
266:files from the BnF, and produced
338:
323:
311:
299:
238:Bibliothèque nationale de France
135:
125:
115:
105:
95:
85:
1633:If option three is implemented:
1021:in last week's "News and notes"
934:Three Chapter reports published
2323:17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
2305:13:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
2289:23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
2203:15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
2185:15:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
2159:14:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
2109:14:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
2089:13:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
2074:12:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
2056:12:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
2015:12:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1989:11:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1969:08:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1949:07:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
1936:15:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
1910:07:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
1881:05:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
1847:03:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
1820:21:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
1781:20:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
1744:16:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
1688:14:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
1663:09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
1641:If option four is implemented:
1599:04:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
1570:04:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
1553:03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
1534:02:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
1490:23:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1466:21:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1451:17:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1428:16:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1400:21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
1369:16:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1350:08:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1327:05:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1309:05:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1294:20:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
1279:01:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
1247:15:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1232:15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1217:14:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1202:02:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1183:19:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
1151:add the page to your watchlist
13:
1:
1625:If option two is implemented:
1023:, the WMF Board (re)formed a
958:Argentine War of Independence
950:see earlier Signpost coverage
676:The future of pending changes
475:The future of pending changes
2143:regardless of the rationales
1126:
1025:Movement roles working group
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
1340:discussion/co-operation. -
921:: The Wikimedia Foundation
169:Global page-edit statistics
10:
2408:
2099:(see message at 12:11). -
2259:still a work in progress.
1011:last week's "In the news"
1095:Public Policy Initiative
1032:has been posted on Meta.
1017:Movement roles workgroup
854:Jimbo Wales has made an
380:automated mass blanking
364:copyright infringements
1648:
1644:Explicit supports: 162
1636:Explicit supports: 308
1628:Explicit supports: 117
1437:that was established.
1148:. To follow comments,
1063:
972:Discussions have begun
449:
36:
1617:
1062:
448:
332:François-Joseph Talma
199:, and excludes known
35:
1144:from this article's
968:Wikimania Committee?
860:Pending changes poll
360:indefinitely blocked
285:on Wikimedia Commons
2271:User:Moonriddengirl
1110:Features and admins
993:Gadget installation
976:Wikimania Committee
2247:pure tabular form.
1135:Discuss this story
1115:Arbitration report
1105:WikiProject report
1064:
1051:"News and notes" →
978:, kick-started by
450:
423:long-term solution
42:← Back to Contents
37:
2223:page blanking bot
1333:just on the basis
1269:comment added by
1159:purging the cache
1120:Technology report
1072:13 September 2010
848:
847:
734:13 September 2010
721:27 September 2010
533:13 September 2010
520:27 September 2010
186:global page views
54:13 September 2010
47:View Latest Issue
2399:
2375:
2321:
2319:
2173:
2167:
2139:shutting it down
1946:
1933:
1928:
1817:
1812:
1685:
1680:
1583:
1550:
1545:
1487:
1482:
1448:
1443:
1397:
1392:
1366:
1361:
1324:
1319:
1281:
1162:
1160:
1154:
1133:
1082:
1074:
1067:
1050:
1043:"News and notes"
1042:
839:
826:
813:
800:
787:
774:
761:
748:
747:6 September 2010
735:
722:
709:
696:
683:
670:
644:
643:
638:
625:
612:
599:
586:
573:
560:
547:
546:6 September 2010
534:
521:
508:
495:
482:
469:
453:
452:Related articles
447:
384:Task explanation
342:
327:
315:
303:
165:
139:
138:
129:
128:
119:
118:
109:
108:
99:
98:
89:
88:
59:
57:
55:
2407:
2406:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2371:
2369:
2364:
2359:
2354:
2349:
2342:
2331:
2330:
2317:
2310:
2225:
2171:
2165:
2130:Also, I said, "
1944:
1931:
1924:
1815:
1808:
1683:
1676:
1610:Support 2 and 4
1579:
1548:
1541:
1485:
1478:
1446:
1439:
1433:affect the 65%
1395:
1388:
1364:
1357:
1322:
1315:
1264:
1169:
1167:Pending changes
1164:
1156:
1149:
1138:
1137:
1131:+ Add a comment
1129:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1100:Sister projects
1075:
1070:
1068:
1065:
1054:
1053:
1048:
1045:
1040:
1019:: As reported
962:liberal studies
915:
851:
850:
849:
844:
708:11 October 2010
507:11 October 2010
457:
456:
451:
445:
440:
439:
353:
346:
343:
334:
328:
319:
316:
307:
304:
234:
171:
166:
147:
146:
145:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
86:
80:
77:
66:
62:
60:
50:
49:
44:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2405:
2395:
2394:
2370:
2365:
2360:
2355:
2350:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2333:
2332:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2261:
2260:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2241:
2238:
2235:
2232:
2224:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2135:
2128:
2121:
2114:
2062:
2031:
2024:
2018:
2017:
1974:
1972:
1971:
1952:
1951:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1704:actually works
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1645:
1643:
1639:
1637:
1635:
1631:
1629:
1627:
1623:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1602:
1601:
1573:
1572:
1537:
1536:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1403:
1402:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1271:217.44.191.121
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1186:
1185:
1168:
1165:
1139:
1136:
1128:
1127:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1085:News and notes
1081:
1069:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1046:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1014:
1007:Barry Newstead
996:
990:
974:on a possible
965:
931:
914:
911:
906:Wales proposed
901:
900:
894:
883:
875:George W. Bush
852:
846:
845:
842:
841:
835:
829:
828:
822:
816:
815:
809:
803:
802:
796:
790:
789:
783:
777:
776:
770:
764:
763:
760:23 August 2010
757:
751:
750:
744:
738:
737:
731:
725:
724:
718:
712:
711:
705:
699:
698:
695:29 August 2011
692:
686:
685:
679:
673:
672:
666:
659:
656:
655:
647:
641:
640:
634:
628:
627:
621:
615:
614:
608:
602:
601:
595:
589:
588:
582:
576:
575:
569:
563:
562:
559:23 August 2010
556:
550:
549:
543:
537:
536:
530:
524:
523:
517:
511:
510:
504:
498:
497:
494:29 August 2011
491:
485:
484:
478:
472:
471:
465:
458:
455:News and notes
454:
443:
442:
441:
438:
435:
362:for extensive
352:
349:
348:
347:
344:
337:
335:
329:
322:
320:
317:
310:
308:
305:
298:
296:
244:available for
233:
230:
229:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
212:
170:
167:
151:Resident Mario
144:
143:
133:
123:
113:
103:
93:
82:
81:
78:
72:
71:
70:
69:
65:News and notes
64:
63:
61:
58:
45:
40:
39:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2404:
2393:
2390:
2389:
2387:
2374:
2368:
2363:
2358:
2353:
2348:
2340:
2338:
2324:
2320:
2315:
2314:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2266:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2245:
2242:
2239:
2236:
2233:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2170:
2169:editprotected
2162:
2161:
2160:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2133:
2129:
2126:
2122:
2119:
2115:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2097:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2036:
2032:
2029:
2025:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2003:
1998:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1953:
1950:
1947:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1934:
1929:
1927:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1869:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1821:
1818:
1813:
1811:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1761:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1732:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1689:
1686:
1681:
1679:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1647:
1646:Opposes: 462
1642:
1634:
1626:
1621:
1611:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1582:
1575:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1564:
1563:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1551:
1546:
1544:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1522:
1517:
1513:
1512:
1491:
1488:
1483:
1481:
1474:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1449:
1444:
1442:
1436:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1401:
1398:
1393:
1391:
1384:
1383:
1370:
1367:
1362:
1360:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1320:
1318:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1262:
1258:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1171:
1170:
1161:
1152:
1147:
1143:
1132:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1079:
1073:
1066:In this issue
1061:
1052:
1044:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:CGDO on India
997:
994:
991:
988:
986:
981:
977:
973:
969:
966:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
932:
929:
924:
923:has announced
920:
917:
916:
910:
907:
898:
895:
891:
887:
886:Effectiveness
884:
880:
876:
872:
869:
868:
867:
865:
861:
857:
843:
840:
834:
833:
827:
821:
820:
814:
808:
807:
801:
795:
794:
788:
782:
781:
775:
769:
768:
762:
756:
755:
749:
743:
742:
736:
730:
729:
723:
717:
716:
710:
704:
703:
697:
691:
690:
684:
682:16 April 2012
678:
677:
671:
665:
664:
657:
654:
653:
652:
651:More articles
646:
645:
642:
639:
633:
632:
626:
620:
619:
613:
607:
606:
600:
594:
593:
587:
581:
580:
574:
568:
567:
561:
555:
554:
548:
542:
541:
535:
529:
528:
522:
516:
515:
509:
503:
502:
496:
490:
489:
483:
481:16 April 2012
477:
476:
470:
464:
463:
434:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
413:
410:generated by
409:
405:
400:
396:
391:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
356:Darius Dhlomo
341:
336:
333:
326:
321:
314:
309:
302:
297:
294:
293:
292:
288:
286:
282:
278:
274:
269:
265:
261:
256:
254:
253:
247:
243:
239:
226:
223:
220:
217:
213:
210:
209:
208:
206:
202:
198:
194:
193:
187:
183:
179:
175:
164:
160:
156:
155:Jean-Frédéric
152:
142:
134:
132:
124:
122:
114:
112:
104:
102:
94:
92:
84:
83:
75:
56:
48:
43:
34:
23:
19:
2337:The Signpost
2336:
2312:
2279:
2275:User:Uncle G
2269:
2262:
2255:
2226:
2190:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2131:
2124:
2117:
2095:
2043:
2039:
2034:
2027:
2001:
1976:
1973:
1925:
1920:
1867:
1809:
1803:
1799:
1768:
1759:
1730:
1703:
1677:
1640:
1638:Opposes: 316
1632:
1630:Opposes: 507
1624:
1620:Total votes:
1619:
1618:
1609:
1580:
1566:
1561:
1542:
1538:
1520:
1515:
1479:
1472:
1440:
1434:
1389:
1358:
1336:
1332:
1316:
1260:
1084:
1078:all comments
1016:
998:
984:
967:
954:Buenos Aires
933:
918:
902:
896:
885:
879:Barack Obama
870:
853:
836:
830:
825:14 June 2010
823:
817:
812:14 June 2010
810:
804:
799:14 June 2010
797:
791:
786:21 June 2010
784:
778:
773:21 June 2010
771:
765:
758:
752:
745:
739:
732:
726:
719:
713:
706:
700:
693:
687:
680:
674:
667:
661:
660:
650:
649:
648:
635:
629:
624:14 June 2010
622:
616:
611:14 June 2010
609:
603:
598:14 June 2010
596:
590:
585:21 June 2010
583:
577:
572:21 June 2010
570:
564:
557:
551:
544:
538:
531:
525:
518:
512:
505:
499:
492:
486:
479:
473:
466:
460:
459:
430:
416:
412:VernoWhitney
392:
386:) – roughly
366:. Following
354:
289:
275:coverage in
272:
257:
251:
235:
205:web crawlers
191:
172:
163:Tilman Bayer
2373:Suggestions
2297:Kam Solusar
2281:75.62.4.206
1562:OhanaUnited
1265:—Preceding
1224:Jimbo Wales
1194:Jimbo Wales
1142:transcluded
1090:In the news
890:the results
838:7 June 2010
669:28 May 2012
637:7 June 2010
468:28 May 2012
427:The hope is
408:master list
372:transferred
260:TIFF format
190:18 January
174:Erik Zachte
1977:compromise
1286:DuncanHill
1239:DuncanHill
1209:DuncanHill
1175:DuncanHill
944:, and for
897:Complexity
864:Foundation
429:that this
246:Wikisource
197:squid logs
182:Infodisiac
79:Share this
74:Contribute
22:2010-09-13
2367:Subscribe
2116:I said, "
1839:TomStar81
1736:TomStar81
1581:Doc James
1577:majority.
1526:TomStar81
1146:talk page
946:Hong Kong
942:Argentina
419:announced
404:roll back
250:12 April
159:Theo10011
2386:Category
2362:Newsroom
2357:Archives
2339:archives
2256:articles
2251:changes.
2195:BigK HeX
2151:BigK HeX
2147:proposal
2096:specific
2081:BigK HeX
2048:BigK HeX
2040:Supports
1981:BigK HeX
1591:contribs
1435:majority
1267:unsigned
1041:Previous
987:coverage
985:Signpost
871:Openness
862:for the
431:Signpost
273:Signpost
252:Signpost
192:Signpost
121:LinkedIn
101:Facebook
20: |
2191:outside
2177:Kingpin
2101:Kingpin
2066:Kingpin
2044:Opposes
2035:against
2026:Also, "
2007:Kingpin
1945:Nomader
1902:Kingpin
1873:llywrch
1773:llywrch
1708:Kingpin
1655:Kingpin
1516:clearly
1473:has not
1458:Kingpin
1420:Kingpin
1342:Kingpin
1301:Kingpin
1030:summary
938:Hungary
913:Briefly
399:the bot
395:Uncle G
242:Gallica
111:Twitter
2145:, the
1926:Ronk01
1810:Ronk01
1800:is not
1678:Ronk01
1543:Ronk01
1480:Ronk01
1441:Ronk01
1390:Ronk01
1359:Ronk01
1317:Ronk01
1001:: The
980:Seddon
940:, for
368:debate
281:August
262:) and
178:posted
131:Reddit
91:E-mail
2352:About
1595:email
1521:those
1005:with
374:to
277:April
248:(see
188:(see
16:<
2347:Home
2301:talk
2285:talk
2273:and
2199:talk
2181:talk
2155:talk
2105:talk
2085:talk
2070:talk
2052:talk
2042:and
2011:talk
2002:then
1997:poll
1985:talk
1965:talk
1961:HaeB
1932:talk
1906:talk
1877:talk
1868:they
1843:Talk
1816:talk
1796:this
1777:talk
1740:Talk
1731:knew
1712:talk
1684:talk
1659:talk
1587:talk
1549:talk
1530:Talk
1486:talk
1462:talk
1447:talk
1424:talk
1396:talk
1365:talk
1346:talk
1337:both
1323:talk
1305:talk
1290:talk
1275:talk
1243:talk
1228:talk
1213:talk
1198:talk
1179:talk
1049:Next
877:and
279:and
268:DjVu
255:).
203:and
201:bots
176:has
161:and
141:Digg
2318:Mar
2313:Res
1804:all
1760:any
1622:624
388:10%
264:OCR
149:By
76:—
2388::
2303:)
2287:)
2201:)
2183:)
2175:-
2172:}}
2166:{{
2157:)
2107:)
2087:)
2072:)
2054:)
2013:)
1987:)
1967:)
1908:)
1879:)
1845:)
1779:)
1742:)
1729:I
1706:-
1661:)
1597:)
1593:·
1589:·
1532:)
1464:)
1426:)
1348:)
1307:)
1292:)
1277:)
1261:he
1245:)
1230:)
1215:)
1200:)
1181:)
1039:←
1013:).
989:).
970::
157:,
153:,
2341:.
2299:(
2283:(
2197:(
2179:(
2153:(
2134:"
2120:"
2103:(
2083:(
2068:(
2050:(
2030:"
2009:(
1983:(
1963:(
1904:(
1875:(
1841:(
1775:(
1738:(
1714:)
1710:(
1657:(
1585:(
1528:(
1460:(
1422:(
1344:(
1303:(
1288:(
1273:(
1241:(
1226:(
1211:(
1196:(
1177:(
1163:.
1153:.
1080:)
1076:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
