On 3/3/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I agree. Way too many vandalisms from IPs and new
users vs the *VERY* little to any improvement
those user classes make to the article while it is a TFA. All the many reverts do is take
time
away from fighting other vandalism and pollute the history page with anon edit followed
by revert
times 50 to a 100 for any TFA. TFA is supposed to showcase our very best work, not a page
whose
only content for several minutes is 'I like farts'.
I don't think we expect to get much improvement to the front page FA
from anons. We just want to prove that they can edit.
We needn't hype the editability fact so much given that we get many edits, have so
many editors,
and that readers outnumber editors by at least 200 to 1. The vast, vast majority of
people
We don't need to encourage people to edit because we have 200 times as
many readers as editors? I disagree.
come to Wikipedia expect to see quality content not
fart jokes. Because of that, vandalism is
becoming increasingly less and less tolerable in my mind; even when it only is in the top
edit for
less than a minute given that one or more readers may have loaded that page in that time.
However I agree with this, because...
Ideally I would like to see the saving of *all* edits
by anons and new users to be delayed until
they are OKd by a trusted user (to be defined) or a clock runs out (default could be 5
minutes and
admins could increase that time on a per article basis).
...I totally agree with this. I suspect it would be somewhat tricky to
implement, but yes, this would help a great deal with vandalism. I
don't think it's "unfair" on anon users that their edits are delayed
for a while, and I think it would have a deterrent effect on vandals
as well. ("What? My fart joke isn't even going to get its 1 minute of
fame?")
Steve