Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:

From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com>


Neat! But who gets to mark an edit as "patrolled"? Letting an anon
or new user
do that would tend to defeat the purpose. Also, depending on a
single person's
judgment may be problematic as well. Ideally an article would need
to be viewed
by 3 non-newbies/anons to get the "patrolled" tag.

I don't think so. It's not as if marked articles would never be looked at. The function of the feature, as I see it, is not to be technical armor against bad behavior and bad faith, but to reduce Wikistress by insuring that many eyes _do not_ look at new articles if many eyes are not needed.

I think it's a very good idea.

The checked edits idea has been bumping around a lot (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Checked_edits_brainstorming for one round of the debate).

Of course the initial system is game-able, and the hike to "3 checks" mentioned by mav above is game-able too. If an edit needs n different checks to count as checked a malevent user can simply create n+1 accounts. (This gets progressively more difficult for the bad user as n increases; I reckon n=3 might be about the right level too).

The solution to this is to say *who* has done the checking. Then we have an embryonic version of the fabled web of trust.

But for now, I think it is fantastic this idea has been implemented. It will help clean after the "vanilla vandals" who are far more numerous than the seriously annoying malevalent users, who can and will meddle with the system, and eventually get banned for it.

Thanks to Timwi.

Pete/Pcb21