[Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
mrzmanwiki at gmail.com
Mon Mar 30 22:36:11 UTC 2009
> CC'd this to Foundation-l.
> There is a poll currently on the English Wikipedia to implement a version of
> FlaggedRevisions. The poll was introduced left into the vacuum which
> remained after the first poll failed to result in concrete action. At the
> close of poll #1, Jimmy indicated that he thought it had passed and should
> result in an FR implementation. When he received some protest, he announced
> that he would shortly unveil a new compromise proposal.
> While I'm sure he had the best of intentions, this proposal hasn't
> materialized and the result has been limbo. Into the limbo rides another
> proposal, this one masquerading as the hoped for compromise. Unfortunately,
> it isn't - at least, not in the sense that it is a middle ground between
> those who want FR implemented and those who oppose it. What it does do is
> compromise, as in fundamentally weaken, the concept of FR and the effort to
> improve our handling of BLPs.
> The proposed implementation introduces all the bureaucracy and effort of
> FlaggedRevisions, with few of the benefits. FlaggedProtection, similar to
> semi-protection, can be placed on any article. In some instances,
> FlaggedProtection is identical to normal full protection - only, it still
> allows edit wars on unsighted versions (woohoo). Patrolled revisions are
> passive - you can patrol them, but doing so won't impact what the general
> reader will see. It gives us the huge and useless backlog which is exactly
> what we should not want, and exactly what the opposition has predicted. The
> only likely result is that inertia will prevent any further FR
> implementation, and we'll be stuck with a substitute that grants no real
> What I would like to see, and what I have been hoping to see, is either
> implementation of the prior proposal (taking a form similar to that used by
> de.wp) or actual proposal of a true compromise version. The current poll
> asks us to just give up.
How is it not a compromise? Its a version that most of the supporters
still support and that many of the opposers now support. Compromise
involves both sides making concessions, not repeatedly proposing the
same thing in hopes of a different outcome. So far it has far more
community support than the previous proposed version (which had what?
I'm getting really mad at the people opposing every version of
FlaggedRevs that doesn't provide some ultimate level of protection for
BLPs. If you want something that helps BLPs, PROPOSE SOMETHING! Sitting
around and opposing everything in favor of some non-existent system is
unhelpful and basically saying that articles are worthless unless they
are BLPs. The proposed system can potentially help some articles, while
this un-proposed system that will be a magic bullet for the BLP problem
currently helps nothing, because it doesn't exist.
I agree that patrolled revisions have a high likelihood of failing. Its
too bad we aren't proposing to use it as a trial instead, so if they
don't work, we can come up with a different system. Oh, wait...
If FlaggedProtection results in a manageable system, then we can
consider expanding it to more articles than the current policy would
allow. Enwiki is big and slow; expecting it to do some massive, visible
change over hundreds of thousands of articles all at once is rather
unrealistic. Several months ago, I told Erik on this list that enwiki
would never be able to get consensus for FR, it looks like I'm wrong
about that. Perhaps there's some hope left after all.
More information about the foundation-l