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

[Ray Saintonge]

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