Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
5% of edits taking more that FOUR HUNDRED AND
THIRTY NINE HOURS EIGHT
MINUTES AND FIFTY FIVE SECONDS?! That is unforgivable, even with every
article included. They either have too strict criteria for sighting so
too many people say "Oh, I'm not sure/don't have time to work that
out, I'll leave it to someone else" or people aren't working through
the backlog in order.
Um... Hm. The words "unaccepable" and "unfogiveable" only entered
lexicon after the Siegenthaller meteorite impacted and wiped out all
notions that "collaboration," "consensus," and "wikilove"
The fact of the matter was then, remains so, and will remain so, that
some articles are just not as notable, and therefore won't get seen
and won't get checked on anyone's schedule.** There is no issue of
"unforgivability' involved at all, even if we can say that there is a
serious issue of "unacceptability."
And even then, the focus on BLP articles comes not from a general
appreciation for 'reliability,' but from a practical need to focus on
people that can write editorials, a logical limitation on the usage of
the "unacceptability" as a whip, and a healthy fear of 'let's not get
our assets sued.'
Couple of points I want to raise. I was wondering if this
make another Siegenthaller incident more or less likely. My
understanding is that the flagged revs is only to prevent obvious
vandalism, it isn't set up so that each addition has to be verified
before it goes live. Is that correct? If so, wouldn't that mean that
once something has been through the flagged rev net, there's a
possibility of a culture arising that assumes such edits are "good"
edits, and they don't get checked in greater detail. Looking at it,
it's entirely plausible we're going to have people from all over the
world examining edits outside their context. That's going to mean things
will get missed, isn't it? Not saying it isn't any better than the
current model, but at least with the current model someone will not
assume something is good since they will know it hasn't been checked.
Secondly, isn't it plausible that the longer a flagged rev isn't passed,
the more likely it is that it will never pass. By which I mean that if
something sits there for ten to fifteen minutes, people will start to
get nervous about passing it, because they will attach an irrational
fear to it, basing that on the perceived fact that if it wasn't a
complicated issue it would have passed by now? Does that make sense?
And then it seems the two sort of feed into each other. We either pass
stuff unless it's blatant, but then we miss targeted, malicious
disruption, or we go in depth but then run the risk of rendering the
solution unworkable. Apologies if these have been discussed before. I
still don't have a real handle on how it will all work.
But I'm still failing to understand why the community won't semi-protect