I see where you're coming from, and I think it's fantastic that it works on NL, but I doubt patrolled edits will ever become useful on enwiki. Last time they were in place, the system was largely ignored. Now, I cannot say how it's going this time around (I've been out of the loop on enwiki meta-issues it seems), but I fear it will do the same. The simple fact is that enwiki is /far/ too large to properly make use of any quality control system, be it patrolled edits or flaggedrevs.
If only we had 1,000,000 articles again. 2 million is too many, and I for one think we need to do some major pruning and sprucing up of our guidelines. Quality, not quantity, is what we need. I find it hard to believe we have 2 million articles on 2 million notable subjects. I for one would like to see the article count drop *below* 2 million again.
Chad H.
On Nov 21, 2007 3:40 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Lodewijk explained in a discussion on a private list how the 'revision patrolled' mechanism worked well on nl:wp. I remember that it rapidly fell into disuse on en:wp, so asked how it worked in practice. (Message forwarded here with permission - "consider it gfdl :-)".)
I think the idea of an RC patrol roster would be useful - not to find people to cover the time, as much as to discourage people from doing it to the point of burnout (and the consequent presumption of bad faith and newbie-biting).
Thoughts? (And what are the most useful venues on en:wp to put a link to or copy of this message on?)
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com
I think that this is not entirely true. MarkAsPatrolled is being used extensively in the Dutch language Wikipedia (already for years now i
think),
with good results. You just might have to work out the right
procedures to
make it work. I am not entirely sure on which wiki you are basing your conclusions, but you might want to consider to check out nlwiki :)
[someone else's response deleted - d.]
on nlwiki we have a control center for vandal fighting. You may find it on http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CV . Every day is chopped in several pieces, and people can sign up for a part to check it (afterwards). That way every single anonymous edit is manually checked. If the edit is checked, it will be marked as patrolled. A symilar list is set up for new articles, but this is not with mark-as-patrolled, but with only a checklist for day-parts.
Everybody with a confirmed account can mark as patrolled. Every m.a.p. is logged. So if someone falsely marks an edit as patrolled, he or she can be blocked for that. It is not official policy, but generally considered as inside-vandalism, so worse then normal vandalism.
I think the main trick is that the majority of the vandal fighters has to support the system. Furthermore, there has to be a certain social control. The most obvious problems have already been fixed (anonymous and new accounts can't mark. Marks are logged, so abuse can be tracked and stopped.
The largest advantage of map is that you can share the workload, that you can check the vandalism afterwards. Especially for wiki's with no 24/7 patrols this might be very usefull, or wiki's with a *lot* of edits, where live patrol becomes impossible. There is a clearly defined backlog, and 99% of the vandalism is found this way.
BR, Lodewijk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l