On 9/24/07, Adam Biswanger adambiswanger1@yahoo.com 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&o...
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&o...
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&a...
(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.