Flagged revisions is not going to solve much more than obvious vandalism. If we flag  a good proportion of article, then we will need lots of reviewers, and the level will be set at sysop of lower - the job will be tedious and done by the lazy with an eye on edit count. The problem is that subtle attempt to insert credible untruths, half-truths, or facts spun to create an imbalanced biased picture of a person will almost certainly walk through this. Only what is obvious to the average lazy reviewer will be prevented - but what is obvious to the reviewer is not harmful, because it is also obvious to the reader. Hence, general flagging will not solve the BLP problem, it will not really even help. We won't dent this until we start to take maintainability into consideration as well as verifiability. Sure, any individual BLPs /can/ be written in good way, but, taken together, our wiki-structure /will not/ maintain this level of BLPs without an unacceptable level of harmful articles. Eventualism does not work here - because shitty biased BLPS in the meantime are not acceptable. We have two choices: 1) delete a large proportion of our lower notability  (=less watched by knowledgable people) BLPs. OR 2) tweek the structures so that those motivated to be doing the quality control (and that includes clued readers) are able to maintain more articles. The second option means looking at: 1) Spot banning anyone pushing negative POVs on a BLP. We should not waste resources arguing with such people. 2) Permanently semi-protecting any article where there's been a previous harmful BLP violation that's not been reverted within a few hours. These are the articles that our open editing has failed once - the subject should not be open to it again. 3) *Insisting on sourcing*. Yes, the patroler /could/ google and check the  verifiability of the thing for himself. But we simply DO NOT have enough clued patroler to do this. We must put the onus on the editor giving the information to "show his working" - so that the partoler (or the casual reader) will be quicker to see any problems with the sourcing. Why should unsourced BLPs not be tolerated? Because we cannot maintain any level of quality control as long as we keep making the checker do all the work. You want it in? You source it - otherwise NO. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

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?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote: I wrote this script a little while ago for this exact purpose: http://toolserver.org/~samkorn/scripts/recentdeaths.php Might be useful until you can get this filter running?

I did not suggest doc that "anyone can review". Review what I said again. I said that established users can review, that it should be an automatic right at a certain point and that admins cannot remove that right. That is quite different from "anyone".

doc wrote: Such a view would institutionalize an assumption of bad faith. That's a speculative view, probably not supported by any evidence. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote: 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.