<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Brandon Harris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bharris@wikimedia.org">bharris@wikimedia.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
My current thinking is to not include a "down vote" system but rather<br>
add in a "flagging" system. Flagging something would be less obvious<br>
and would not be "gameable" - especially if a posting could be marked<br>
"patrolled" or otherwise considered acceptable and immune to flagging.<br>
<br>
To be sure, this is very shaky ground and requires a great deal of<br>
thought. It may come to pass that this is just another ghost of an<br>
idea, consigned to a graveyard. But I think it's worth talking about.<br>
<div><div></div><br></div></blockquote><div>The problem with a "flagging" system is it'll inevitably turn into another backlog. More e-trees have been cut down on discussion pages than on article pages, and the article backlogs are all substantial. If such a system is set up, with exceptions for some editors, we inevitably create a divide in the community - between those who are trusted by default and those who are not trusted at all.<br>
<br>If, for example, an autopatrolled thing was set up for all administrators, it would be making the statement that all administrators Can Do No Wrong when discussing this, and that the trust in the administrators' competence extends not just to deletions, moves and the like, but also to on-wiki interaction, which is not necessarily the case. <br>
</div></div>