Mike.lifeguard wrote:
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
What about c) people not editing (or not
continuing to edit) because
they don't like their edits not going live immediately? Any data on
that?
I think this is one of the two main reasons flagged revs has failed on
enwikibooks. The other being that we lack sufficient manpower to get
enough reviewing done to make it worthwhile.
I hope the usability work being done (I assume, I've not seen the
commits) on the extension will make what manpower we *do* have stretch
further.
I don't know if there is even a theoretical solution to the first problem.
It all depends on what you want the proposal to accomplish. As long as
flagged revisions is a narrow technique to catch vandals on BLPs its
success can only be measured within that narrow window, and there will
always be near misses. Those near misses are too easily interpreted as
someone else's failure, which they are not.
The essence of wikiness is crowd sourcing and the principle that many
eyes will over time produce a valid product. The cultish perfectionism
that demands absolute reliability in every word won't ever work.
Sometimes we bec ome a little too concerned with our fears that a
particular passage may be libellous or a copyvio. We become driven by
the fear that someone is just behind us waiting to severely punish our
every misstep. If we are to trust everyone to edit we have to trust
everyone to evaluate.
What we too easily forget is that most of us grew up in a hierarchic
society, fundamentally based on respect and tradition. That influences
the tools we bring to the table. What makes wikis work is contrary to
that; it requires us to suspend judgement when to do so would be
counterintuitive.
Ec