On 9/24/07, Adam Biswanger wrote:
> I'm less concerned with blatant vandalism than sly, subtle mistakes (think
> John Seigenthaler), and even good-faith errors. I think we've misidentified

It's a mistake to think that flagging is only expected to help with
obvious vandalism. Right now obvious vandalism is the noise that
often hides more subtle vandalism.

Here is an example: A somewhat subtle vandalism (changing a date)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pioneer_plaque&diff=prev&oldid=14242706

was missed because right after it a more obvious vandalism was made
which was reverted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pioneer_plaque&diff=next&oldid=14248233

The problem remained for over a year, until I stumbled across it as a
casual reader: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pioneer_plaque&diff=71317234&oldid=68432539

(Incidentally I think this would be a good example for the trust
coloring system.. it would be a good argument for it as the date would
have been highlighted in the revisions near the change, and an
argument against it.. since the date would look trusted later on even
though no one ever reviewed the change)

Flagging will give us a 'more trusted' point to diff against, which
will reduce problems like this. Some people, like myself, believe that
it will also reduce the total amount amount of simple vandalism thus
freeing up resources to work on harder cases.

Certainly flagging will not stop malicious parties who are well
informed and dedicated to their cause. It is often considered a bad
idea to reject partial solution because it does not cure all problems.

You may well be right that correcting subtle vandalism is more
important, but that does not preclude improving the situation for more
obvious vandalism.

_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l