doc wrote:
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
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.
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).
Why should it be anything more than a tool? My support of flagged revisions has absolutely nothing to do with BLPs; I believe that it should be available for *all *substantive articles. My disappointment is that even that does not go far enough. I would expand it into a rating system that evaluates every article across a small range of different criteria. Unfortunately, for the present all it can realistically do is catch the obvious vandalism, but at least that's a start.
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.
"Anyone can review" is just as powerful as "Anyone can edit." Presuming incompetence is not a good way to encourage and retain new editors, and it is the height of arrogance to pretend the ability to make that judgement. Your arguments sound more like what might expect of admins trying to protect their prerogatives.
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?
Neither will throwing out the baby with the bathwater. At the same time, I am not putting flagged revisions on a pedestal so that it can easily be shot down. Any system is only as good as the persons applying it, but that's not the fault of the tool.
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 don't follow your reasoning on that. If someone is calling the subject an "asshole" that's pretty obvious; how would it not be 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.
Amazingly, I agree with your last point, even if it is from the opposite perspective of a supporter of full flagging. You're probably also right that it will have little or no effect on the BLP problems. No military campaign succeeds through aerial bombing alone; you have to put boots on the ground. The recent proposal tries to do too much at once, perhaps in an attempt to placate the opponents of flagged revisions, but only manages to emasculate itself.
For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction.
They are two different issues.
Ec