doc wrote:
wjhonson(a)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