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?