Will, look at the example I provided earlier in this thread.
Established editors and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and
leaving an article in a state of previous vandalism. How do you begin
to address that problem?
I don't want to link to the revisions in question, as the attacks are
quite nasty (look at the revert I made and what it removed). Please do
go and look, and you will find a whole series of Huggle edits that
reverted the most recent vandalism, but still left the article in an
absolutely unacceptable state. Worse, this continued for a day or two
until I spotted what had been happening.
Carcharoth
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, <wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
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(a)ntlworld.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 1:07 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
wjhonson(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l