[Foundation-l] Sue Gardner, Erik Möller , William Pietri: Where is FlaggedRevisions?

[Anthony]

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Peter Gervai <grinapo at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 21:36, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I don't think anyone has actually done any objective review of its
> success.
>
> Which does not imply it's been a failure.


No, of course not.  What it implies is that a claim that "it's been quite a
successful feature" should be disregarded unless and until some actually
objective review is presented.

But generally my measure would be
> a) bad mood/stress level of the editors doing patrolling (which by my
> educated guess went down), and
>
b) the incidents of indecent/unwanted content appearing for the wide
> public (which by my observation definitely went down, my guess is
> close to zero).
>
> There are people who thought it's a miracle and now disappointed that
> it wasn't. It doesn't solve world peace, hunger, and article quality
> problems, among other things. But what it does is basically make usual
> vandalism pointless.
>
> At least on my home wiki, huwp.
>
> Still it's okay for me "to have it implemented and let people to see
> _whether_ it's a failure".
>

Okay, good point, you're right.  I've been known to be wrong from time to
time, so I should leave room for the possibility that this is one of those
times.  Maybe it will be a success.  Maybe it'll cut down drastically on the
stupid obvious vandalism, thereby freeing people up to concentrate on the
tricky subtle vandalism.  Or maybe the culture of the English Wikipedia is
just drastically different from the Hungarian Wikipedia, and the total
amount of vandalism won't go down much at all - it'll just get trickier and
more subtle, and the vandal-fighters will wind up spending more time and not
less.  Unfortunately, if I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter.

In any case, the kind of problem which Mr. McBride (?) was complaining about
doesn't fall under "usual vandalism" anyway.

Anthony