I would like to propose that for users with a proven track record of edits, it becomes possible to make edits and additions to the catalogue without the need for a referee validation.
This is possible on Wikipedia and Wikidata for example, as well as on many other similar databases in other fields (setlist.fm, MusicBrainz, etc).
Why this would help:
- I often refrain from doing small edits, because this creates a lot of work for referees and master referees who have to check the edits. I was even told in the past by several referees that such small edits are not welcome. As a random example, I would now like to fix the typo “emporer” instead of "emperor" which appears at the moment on 40 coins, 14 banknotes, and 2 exonumia. I think there is no need for such an edit to be double-checked by a referee.
- long validation times are demotivating. For instance, for edits that need to be done for dozens or hundreds of items (e.g., adding missing catalogue numbers), I do these in batches, and if the first batch takes weeks or months to be validated, it's hard to proceed with the next batch of edits or additions.
- lastly, some edits are quite complex, for example, adding varieties. Especially when different fonts, links, and images are involved in the comments section (example) it is difficult to preview the change, so often I forget something small, or a link syntax is broken, and I need to cancel the edit and start over.
It could be that standards for this privilege are high, for example at least 1000-2000 additions and 5000-10000 edits, with less than 0.5% rejects and at least 100 edits in the last 3 months. And possibly, some fields will still need to be verified, e.g. the title and the dates.
A simple orthographic correction shouldn't take long at all but there is no way to differentiate a simple change from a more complex one.
Also if we would become like Wikipedia, the first action from me would be to resign, I have no intentions to put out the dumpster fire Wikipedia is behind the scenes.
The reference adding also shouldn't take long if it's from a readily available source a not some obscure specialist writ that nobody owns. But even then a picture/scan of the reference for the initial CRs should provide enough evidence that the following changes should also be correct and as such not take long to accept.
Better ascertaining of referee availability should be pushed, like refs shouldn't be able to turn off the last log-in depiction etc. (it's not precise by design so nobody knows when you are on exactly anyway) so long inactivity can be noticed easier and dealt with.
For “trusted” member editing access … maybe for referee-less issuers or if the ref opted-in but otherwise it would be a no from me. I want to know what's going on in my jurisdiction. I can only have a co-referee because we talked specifically who does what.
If you are making many changes in a certain country talk with the ref before hand about your goals etc so the work can go quicker and smoothly.
I had it a few times that someone made dozens upon dozens of requests that were unfortunately flawed and I had to reject most of them.
Communicating beforehand would have saved both of us much work.
Also if we would become like Wikipedia, the first action from me would be to resign, I have no intentions to put out the dumpster fire Wikipedia is behind the scenes.
May I ask what the difference is between Numista and Wikipedia? As far as I can tell, there is no fundamental difference. Both are built by contributors and have some hierarchy for privileges. If anything I think Wikipedia has a much better referencing system.
If you are making many changes in a certain country talk with the ref before hand about your goals etc so the work can go quicker and smoothly.
Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. I have had replies in the past when referees didn't disagree with the changes I proposed, they were just not willing to do the work. This is essentially why the import of thousands of Roman Imperial coinage from OCRE stopped. After the resignation of druzhynets, none of the remaining referees was willing to assist with some basic changes. How does this make Numista better?
I wonder what exactly makes a referee “qualified” to verify an edit. If apuking wants to make an edit, someone will have to validate his request. He has 10 000+ coins added, I suspect mostly German states. Who is more qualified than him to edit this section? None of the other referees or even master referees are more experienced for sure.
The reality is that a referee could be a world-class expert in numismatics with an H-index of 100+, or they could be someone with limited knowledge of English/French and access to nothing but an outdated edition of SCWC. On Numista we are all just a username with some stats. The appointment is simply made based on the number of contributions to the catalogue. So in this regard, shouldn't the number of contributions result in some privileges for non-referee editors?
As it stands right now, a user with 100 000 contributions goes through exactly the same process as someone who joined Numista today and has 0 edits.
This idea of “jurisdiction” is in my opinion also misinterpreted more often than not in Numista. Yes, some referees strive to implement the guidelines and make a section consistent, but many sections are simply dreadful. The way things are right now, it's simply inefficient to make edits and demotivating to have to wait weeks or months on end for changes to be validated.
The size, popularity and extreme bureaucratic substructure and in-fighting, have you ever tried to do significantly contribution there *shudder* (maybe it's also very heterogenous experience depending on the field and who you get where you want to add a create something)?
For how it's now there are very few things that a member needs to qualify for a referee position but even with those we have vast parts of the catalog without one and quite a few refs have over ten not so little catalogs to take care of. To change this there would need to be significant changes in the user base amount and participation to even get a pool to chose from.
Paul decided to step down, for multiple reasons so he sadly isn't responsible anymore. He can still make changes like anyone else if he wants to and if it was me I wouldn't need to know that he edited the catalog for years or how big some number is to see the quality of his work.
I don't know why you went or were removed but throwing around big numbers to legitimise something sounds a bit off to me, not saying that you didn't make many positive contributions and proposed very good ideas to the site.
It just sound like you want to make it a one man show and maybe that rubs people the wrong way.
Jurisdiction is just a word I used the refer to a part of the catalog I am responsible for, nothing more nothing less was implied.
May I ask what the difference is between Numista and Wikipedia? As far as I can tell, there is no fundamental difference. Both are built by contributors and have some hierarchy for privileges. If anything I think Wikipedia has a much better referencing system.
On Numista, it is the responsibility of referees to ensure that changes are accurate.
This step does not exist on Wikipedia, where anyone can add anything, which can be challenged but not removed. Quality and reliability of content is the difference.
Wikipedia is not a reliable reference as a result, and it is not used in the University education sector in which publication is always peer-reviewed.
I would also resign immediately if Numista were to be wikipediaized.
This is also and even more the case for Numista, especially without a good source system.
But implementing this can easily set the bar way higher and reduce the sparse number of contributors and you will have to deal with a significant increase in upkeep (link rot etc.). It's sadly a catch 22 sometimes trying to increase the quality/credibility. 🥲
I feel this request would only come from former referrees who sometimes feel frustrated to wait for changes valudation because they were used to do them all the time. The task you describe about cleaning systemic typos is typiccally a referree responsibility in my opinion, the fact you want to do it as a simple contributor is unusual I believe.
You should have chosen to stay a referree, it would maybe have been the best solution of the issue you raise.
I disagree with the request because anyone could then make unseen changes, which could diverge from current referree's policy in terms of editing consistency.
At the very least, referrees should be notified when such changes are automaticcally validated, to raise awareness about issues to be solved in their “juridiction”
Would not work as changes can not be reviewed by the community. That's the big difference to Wikipedia. If there's not one specific person responsible for quality then there are needed many eyes, many edits and many discussions to gain the quality.
I'm not orange and also in other things I'm not a Donald at all. DonChori like Don Felipe or Doña María, por favor.
From my point of view every little change needed can be submit without any problem. It’s the principle of a collaborative catalog.
I was like you referee, and I never felt anoyed by any change request that contributed to a better catalog quality.
I believe that your request can have a negative impact on the referees motivation as they will see changes they may haven’t approved, just as an example, I submit the shape modification of all the 20 cents euro, the 2 first edit were refused even with the link to the forum topic I gave as reference, if the referee would have seen the modification afterwards I have no doubt he would have change it back.
Stratocaster wrote to me in DM because he felt hurt by my comment above which he considered unprofessionnal and demotivating. I'm really sorry if anyone else felt hurt too by my message, it was absolutely not my goal and I feel bad about it.
I just want now to make my arguments more clear, to avoid any misunderstanding:
- i think this request is not something usual contributors of Numista would need or even think of, so I'm not sure we should prioritize this feature
- i think this request would in addition create potentially more issues than solutions, in terms of editing consistency
- i think anyway a quick and easy solution for contributors wishing to help numista catalog to embetter and grow thanks to massive requests and systemic fixes is for them to apply as referrees or admins, as this status exist for this very purpose. It would also probably help to reduce average time to validate requests 😉
Again, thanks everyone for allowing this community stay a place of benevolence and collaboration, I wouldnt have invested so much time and energy here without this context 😄
Stratocaster wrote to me in DM because he felt hurt by my comment above which he considered unprofessionnal and demotivating. I'm really sorry if anyone else felt hurt too by my message, it was absolutely not my goal and I feel bad about it.
Well, I’m not sure then if this will not put more gasoline on the fire. If he wrote you private, keep it private…
We have all different backgrounds and sensibilities, I don’t agree with the idea proposal but I understand the argumentation behind it and that make sense but for a very little population of users. And the risks is higher that the benefit, I remember a thread in the referee forum about old referees and not all have done a great job… remember the great idea of one referee to turn all coins titles page in local language for Poland and others countrie.
Well, I’m not sure then if this will not put more gasol in the fire. If he wrote you private, keep it private…
I truly believe there is no such thing as a fire, merely a misunderstanding which led to harsh conclusions. Out of transparency, I tried to explain my rationale which was probably not clear enough at first as it led to bad feelings. But thanks for the advice 😀
As a user, I would love to be able to make basic modifications (description, add information, data) without having to wait for the approval of some referee, which often takes a long time to arrive and, sometimes, the modification is denied when you have even been able to demonstrate with data that the new information provided was correct.
As a referee, I prefer to be able to approve the proposed modifications in order to have better control of the information to be added.
It is also true that referees can make mistakes or do an incorrect job and that, instead, many users could offer very useful information and data that would improve Numista and that, sometimes, due to the issue of having to wait for an approval (or denial) of a job done, they don't even try to give that information.
Very complicated topic that has more than one version.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
That's why I proposed in the past to be able to ask the user for a revision on a CR (Change Request) instead of a rejection…as we do for new coins when there is info missing or wrong.
This way, they're will be better communications between the referee and the user. The user won't feel like his change request was completly rejected. He will feel like he is collaborating with the referee.
Best regards,
Québécois
Ancienement, référent du Canada / FYI former referee for Canada
I would like to propose that for users with a proven track record of edits, it becomes possible to make edits and additions to the catalogue without the need for a referee validation.
I think we all do it implicitly. With time, we get to know our frequent submitter and the quality of their work. I personnaly approuve some CR (change request) from my “regular” without much verifications. 😉
Québécois
Ancienement, référent du Canada / FYI former referee for Canada
That's why I proposed in the past to be able to ask the user for a revision on a CR (Change Request) instead of a rejection…as we do for new coins when there is info missing or wrong.
This way, they're will be better communications between the referee and the user. The user won't feel like his change request was completly rejected. He will feel like he is collaborating with the referee.
have you ever tried to do significantly contribution there *shudder* (maybe it's also very heterogenous experience depending on the field and who you get where you want to add a create something)?
Yes, I am an active contributor to various Wikimedia projects, including English Wikipedia, and the experience is perfectly smooth! Much faster, better and more transparent than here.
Idolenz
It just sound like you want to make it a one man show and maybe that rubs people the wrong way.
I believe you didn't understand my proposal. It is the exact opposite. Currently, there are a select few who can edit the catalogue as they consider. For example, the Roman Empire is actually a one-person show. My proposal is that everyone can contribute in a democratic way, provided they meet certain transparent criteria.
Hibernia
On Numista, it is the responsibility of referees to ensure that changes are accurate.
This step does not exist on Wikipedia, where anyone can add anything, which can be challenged but not removed. Quality and reliability of content is the difference.
That is not correct. On Wikipedia, this process exists too. Users can review articles, and this step is recorded in the publicly accessible history.
Hibernia
Wikipedia is not a reliable reference as a result, and it is not used in the University education sector in which publication is always peer-reviewed.
Wikipedia is used in academic research and education, many scientific articles document this. Here is just an example.
Nevertheless, Numista is not more reliable than Wikipedia. Reliability comes from referencing quality sources, and Numista has significant shortcomings in this regard. See my proposal here. Wikipedia is actually much better equipped for this.
Academic use is not justified by online personas validating requests. Online personas are not “peers”. Firstly because there are always several peers, whereas on Numista, there is always just one referee validating the request, even for issuers with multiple referees. Furthermore, peers need to have certain qualifications, and I've explained above that this is not the case with Numista referees.
Compendium
I disagree with the request because anyone could then make unseen changes
I have clearly explained that not everyone should be able to change entries, but only contributors with a proven track record.
Compendium
At the very least, referrees should be notified when such changes are automaticcally validated, to raise awareness about issues to be solved in their “juridiction”
I think this is a good idea, maybe also giving the possibility to revert certain changes. I believe this functionality already exists for admins.
DonChori
Would not work as changes can not be reviewed by the community. That's the big difference to Wikipedia. If there's not one specific person responsible for quality then there are needed many eyes, many edits and many discussions to gain the quality.
I am afraid I can't see what you mean. All users of Numista can review any piece of information. Maybe the proposal above from Compendium would address this.
Indomini16
I believe that your request can have a negative impact on the referees motivation as they will see changes they may haven’t approved,
I believe the suggestion from Compendium above addresses this issue. And how about the contributor motivation?
Compendium
this request is not something usual contributors of Numista would need
Yes, it is for the committed users who make a lot of contributions to Numista.
Compendium
i think this request would in addition create potentially more issues than solutions, in terms of editing consistency
This seems like an opinion unsupported by any evidence. Can you please elaborate and give some examples of your concerns? I am opening this topic specifically because I would want some major inconsistent areas in Numista fixed and brought in line with the rest of the catalogue, because the referees regrettably don't seem to be interested in improving the entries. If a section is already good and consistent, why would it need to be changed?
Compendium
a quick and easy solution for contributors wishing to help numista catalog to embetter and grow thanks to massive requests and systemic fixes is for them to apply as referrees or admins, as this status exist for this very purpose.
First, this is not always a solution. Sometimes it works, but it has also happened that my application stayed unanswered for months. I also applied to be a co-referee of a massive issuer with a single referee, but the referee didn't want co-referees, although they were also not improving the catalogue at all.
Second, users may not be interested in validating requests. This is exactly my point, that some requests don't need to be validated. There were instances where I got thousands of requests in one day. The contributions were valid but trivial, and the contributor didn't have the courtesy to check with me beforehand. So then referees have to waste a good span of time simply clicking accept and waiting for the next page to load. For me, this was a very tedious task that didn't motivate me at all. Instead, referees could spend their time productively and improve the catalogue in a more constructive way.
Compendium
It would also probably help to reduce average time to validate requests 😉
My proposal will reduce the number of requests that need to be validated.
These are just some recent contributions, which show why contributions are not easy. Some referees are simply not aware of the guidelines and reject contributions on the wrong grounds. Then contributors have to check back and appeal wrong decisions. So for simply adding in the lettering for a coin which was initially rejected, I had to provide an additional explanation, citing guidelines and giving examples. I don't think it needs to be so complicated, and contributors could spend their time better, making actual improvements to the catalogue.
Thanks for precisions. I would agree to test this suggestion if we create the “notification center” I mentionned (letting referees know what was changed by the “premium contributors”)
What changed my mind is what you said: some people do wish to contribute massively but absolutely not to validate others' contributions; it is something I realized only recently, and giving them a special status makes sense indeed.
I think automatic rule is possible but simplest could be to just create a new status on which members could apply by issuers.
I was initially against this proposition, but my latest experience gives me a different feeling.
I purchased a book to classify my collection, and decided to integrate the 960 reference on page and line levels.
I thought it will take me 1 week or so, how wrong I was … I started end of December and don't know when I will be able to finish.
First I discovered the joy of the closed line pages … I never used this feature as a reefer and I understand why now …
So I open the first page where I have 10 lines, I integrated the reference numbers on the page and ask to open the line.
The referee approved the change 1 week or so later and forgot to open the line, so I asked him again, and he did open the page 1 week later, so I added the missing lines but had to stop at 20 new lines.
I still need to add lines but as since the 14 of January my changes are not approved I am afraid of duplicate lines, so I won't add the new lines until I have the approval of the missing lines.
And that's only 1 example, I had to change 30/40 pages and to do that I had to go back and forth in the catalog much more times than I ever imagined, it's really unproductive and gave me more than 1 time the desire to give up as the current process of closed pages and partial validation is just frustrating.
I agree that line opening can be a tough case, but they are locked because of exccessive ammount of wrong requests for some items.
It is not used like that now, I know a country where every single page is locked, this is not a correct usage of this feature. I understand that you can lock some pages when you are sure it's fine but not everything, look at the Thread of duplicated pages of Exonumia and you will see the nice workaround users find to this impossibility to add year lines.
That would eliminate the need to reject very good changes because of small mistakes and lot of misunderstandings between requestors and referees.
There is no need for that, because referees can request further information or changes without rejecting it. Or does that only work for new coin pages and not change requests of a current page?
