[WikiEN-l] So, has the need for consensus in wikipedia been eliminated?

[Andrew Gray]

On 10/01/2008, gwern0 at gmail.com <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think we have vandalism covered that well.
>
> I'm a quiet editor; I occasionally write articles and tweak things up,
> and I certainly don't go looking for vandalism. So why is it that I
> keep needing to rv and undo all the time, even when I've, say,
> come back from weeks of vacation and am catching up on
> diffs from days and days ago?

Ditto.

Thing is, here, what we're doing is catching hitherto unidentified
vandalism - it wasn't spotted so it wasn't reverted, and if it wasn't
reverted at it doesn't make any difference as to whether it wasn't
[reverted by undo] or wasn't [reverted manually] or wasn't [reverted
with rollback].

Allowing people to revert faster doesn't help this problem. It helps
with "we have identified vandalism *but not reverted it yet*", because
it clears that backlog faster, but it won't do a whit for stuff they
don't spot, either positively or negatively.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk