MEpedia talk:Suggested tasks
Hi all, a dev suggestion I didn't want to just go ahead and add to "high priority" tasks, as I assume those are selected deliberately: I wondered if it might be possible to turn off the captcha for all logged-in users (or all autoconfirmed users? or creating another user group that trusted users are manually granted permission for, if logged-in or AC doesn't provide enough protection from vandalism?) It would definitely allow me to do more if the captcha were removed (although given what word it is, it's a pretty amazing piece of found performance art to be typing it over and over!) Thanks much and I'm sorry that it's something I have to ask about rather than something I could help do. Canele (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2019 (EST)
- The captcha is annoying me as well. There's currently a plan to add commonly used websites to a whitelist, which will prevent the captcha coming up most of the time. There's currently a link to the proposed whitelist if you have some websites in mind. Most are journal articles, charities or news websites.
- I'm not sure about turning it off for confirmed users - I think I've seen some people sign up just to link to particular websites but I don't know how often. I've never had the autoconfirm email back so need to check if I am one.
- notjusttired (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2019 (EST)
- Oh, yes I should update here: a few of us have started a pretty good list to pick from that--as far as I understand it--requires no special technical expertise to implement, just administrator rights to have access to the page to copy in proposed sites. That list is here. I still think it'd be great to eventually to have all confirmed users exempted from the CAPTCHA, because making editing more labor-intensive is such a needless accessibility barrier to put on trusted users, but I realize that aspiration is probably significantly more technically involved, so adding good websites to the whitelist would be a wonderful start. I'd be happy to do it myself but someone would need to add me to the sysop group so we need an admin (or maybe actually a bureaucrat) in any event. Canele (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2019 (EST)
- notjusttired (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2019 (EST)
5 mins tasks list too long[new][edit source][reply]
The 5 min task list is so long that it's difficult to edit. Some things in there have been done by moving to the bottom is no easy task.
Can subheadings be added eg for year/month then we only need edit a small part?
Not having the name of suggested pages to edit means it harder to work out which to look for. Linking to the pages to edit before the link itself would be so much better. The person requesting would be helpful too eg
- Sounds like a good idea, especially including the person requesting and the month/year requested. That way, if anyone has a question about the task, they have someone to ask, and they know which tasks have been waiting longer. I'll start doing that.
- Pyrrhus (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2019 (EST)
- I really agree that having the requests described and signed would help a lot. In most cases, I can't actually tell what the request is, or I would have done it myself. (I also suspect that in many cases, they are more than five-minute tasks, since just reading a linked study can take at least that long.)
- I also think we don't need to keep a list of the five-minute tasks completed. All the changes are logged both when deleted from this list and added to the relevant page: manually making another record seems like needless work to me. Does anyone object if I just delete the "completed" list and then henceforth we just delete requests as we finish them? Canele (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2019 (EST)
- In absence of objection, I went ahead and removed the completed (pre-2019) list to start to try to make this page a little less unwieldy. Please don't worry, anyone who disagrees can find the entire text here and restore it. And possibly the best would be if we set up an archive page. However, it does make me wonder whether this record is actually being used for anything, or if keeping it just adds extra work for no reason? In theory I can see why it'd be good to have a log of what's checked off as "done" so that someone else could go back and double-check a suggestion was in fact fully/properly implemented...but is anyone actually doing that? Right now we're way, way backlogged just making proposed changes at all; I tend to think the best is if we just delete them as we do them individually, and if someone wants to request something further be done with related material, they can always make another suggestion. Any objections if I revise the instructions accordingly? (And of course, individual users can manage their personal to-do lists however they want; I understand the motivation to keep a list of what you've accomplished!) Canele (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2019 (EST)
Rename to MEpedia:Suggestions[new][edit source][reply]
Any objections if this page "MEpedia suggestions" is renamed "MEpedia:Suggestions"?
Since this page is about the MEpedia project itself, it should really be in the MEpedia namespace. ("MEpedia:")
Also, (minor point) should this page really be in the "MEpedia Guidelines" category? It's not really a guideline.
Pyrrhus (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
- I'm definitely in favor of moving it! What if the new name were MEpedia:Suggestions for MEpedia though? (Or something similar.) Just to be really clear it's not a place to make suggestions for patients or research, but only for the wiki project. How best to categorize continues to stump me, but, I think moving pages to projectspace as appropriate is at least a step in the right organizational direction. Canele (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (EDT)