[WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[wjhonson at aol.com]

I did not suggest doc that "anyone can review".
Review what I said again.
I said that established users can review, that it should be an 
automatic right at a certain point and that admins cannot remove that 
right.

That is quite different from "anyone".


-----Original Message-----
From: doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 1:07 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

wjhonson at aol.com wrote:
> I'm in agreement with David here.
> I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly 
be
> interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or
> remove spurious details.  I think we all do that a bit.  Being a
> policeman is quite a different role.
>
> So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all
> established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to
> unseat a member of the group.  It should probably be automatic at a
> certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature.
> There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for 
admins,
> and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly
> disruptive to the system even though long-term participants.  We 
don't
> need any more of that.
>
> Will Johnson
>

This makes flagged no more than a tool to reduce obvious vandalism - 
and
  quite useless for protecting against real BLP harm (see my last post
for reasoning).

If we have "anyone can review" then we have "any incompetent can 
review"
   and if admins can't quickly remove the reviewing right without 
process
and paperwork then any good-faith incompetent will continue to review.

Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It
reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the
current state of any article. You think giving these same people more
work will solve the subtler BLP problem?

Again, if the bad edit is immediately obvious to the reviewer, it is
also obvious to the reader - so it is not particularly damaging to the
subject.

I am of the opinion that full flagging will make little or no 
difference
to the BLP problem. (That said, it can't do much harm - so let's try
it). However, the current idiotic proposal is utterly useless and
conterproductive.

For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff
to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. For once, let's listen 
to
the Germans who seem to have some useful things to teach us.

Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does
differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with
legitimate subject complaints?


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l