[WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability

[Michael Turley]

On 10/6/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/6/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No. The current wording (including the bit about the electric fence)
> > > expresses the spirit quite accurately, down to the bit about its
> > > electric fence nature.
> > > Bottom line: unless it's to fix simple vandalism as defined at
> > > [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]], there is no right way to revert more than
> > > three times in 24 hours. If you break 3RR, you are doing something
> > > completely wrongly.
>
> > The electric fence analogy gives people the false impression that they
> > can walk *just up to the edge* and even reach their finger toward it.
> > This is why we keep seeing fourth reverts at 24 hours and a few
> > minutes after the first.
> > I'd rather we were more clear that people are not "safe" walking right
> > next to the fence like so many think they are.  Electric fences don't
> > move when necessary to protect the Wiki.  3RR does (and should) move
> > occasionally.
> > Further, a guard dog can catch the scent of an intruder in disguise,
> > much like we sniff out sock puppets.
>
>
> Honestly, I think that anyone who reads [[WP:3RR]] and fails to understand:
>
>     "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric
> fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users
> an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse
> reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly
> discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with
> others."
>
> - is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
> falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they
> frequently can't or won't learn.

Well, the amount of policy a person has to absorb to become socialized
at Wikipedia IS stupefying.  There's a lot to think about and remember
when you just get started.

That's why I think a guard dog analogy is better; it allows for
quicker understanding without thinking about it.  Intuitive
understanding is better than anything that requires thought.

(Also, when the dog is provoked to go beyond the fence, he doesn't
always bite just the intruder; sometimes he bites everyone in the
immediate area.)

I'll leave it at that; if anyone's interested, contact me and I'll
help rewrite a temp page before proposing a change.  If not, that's
fine, too.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused