On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 13:58, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm nice that he's not entirely relying on the Siegenthaler incident and has quoted something beyond 2007. But his reliance on a 2009 Daily Mail story about 20,000 editors vetting changes via flagged revisions http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208941/Free-edit-Wikipedia-appoints...
Yes, during the pending changes trial, Reviewer status was basically being given out along with Rollback. The idea that there was some kind of political motivation behind it is insane. Yes, more experienced users with things like Rollback or Reviewer rights tend to run the site, but that might be because those people are selected for their ability to competently manage the site and those who are incompetent, don't. That may be wishful thinking.