In a message dated 4/29/2008 11:03:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gmaxwell@gmail.com writes:
If you think that some of the proposed improvements are too sweeping and dramatic, then perhaps you should be working on making sure some alternatives happen>>
------------------ I've seen no proposed improvements that address vandalism. Do you have any? I've already made one.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:09 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I've seen no proposed improvements that address vandalism. Do you have any? I've already made one.
How about the new page patrol stuff I linked up thread? It provides for at least initial review, and should catch a bit more than vandalism.. But by itself it does nothing.. it's just mechanism. It needs users and standards to be effective. It's not especially effective at the moment, but its certainly something the could be with more attention.
Many of the folks who have advocated shifting the AfD thresholds for some articles believe that its may be an important part of an effective mitigation strategy. A deleted article gathers no cocks.
.. As most of this poor list knows I've typed my fingers raw in years past proposing various forms of community powered stable version proposals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stable_versions_now).
The easiest stuff to address are the naughty words.. but on the spectrum of harm they are the least worrysome. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem), which is why I'm not spending time no naught-word blocking proposals. (Though I used to run an IRC feed of suspect looking edits, interestingly just looking for the "!" character was one of the most effective triggers)....