[WikiEN-l] So, has the need for consensus in wikipedia been eliminated?

[gwern0 at gmail.com]

On 2008.01.10 09:37:20 +0000, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> scribbled 1.6K characters:
> To outline my strong objections to this in one place:
>
> In itself:
> Negatively: no big deal:
> Vandals vandalise a little faster? but soon blocked anyway.
> Edit warriors can go faster? but warriors will war regardless.
>
> Positively: maybe, at best, a little help
> Lots of people want it to be faster on the draw. However, since in most
> cases of spotted vandalism six people fight to roll it back, the benefit
> to the project is negligible. There is no backlog of reverted, yet
> identified, vandalism. The only conceivable benefit is that it keeps the
> plebs happy by equalising their 'success' rate in the revert race with
> admins - I suppose that's not a bad thing, but little to be excited by.
...

I don't think we have vandalism covered that well.

I'm a quiet editor; I occasionally write articles and tweak things up, and I certainly don't go looking for vandalism. So why is it that I keep needing to rv and undo all the time, even when I've, say, come back from weeks of vacation and am catching up on diffs from days and days ago? I go through my last 500 contributions, and there's good 40 undos there, not counting all the manual reverts and more complicated cases. That doesn't seem to me like we have six people jumping on every instance of vandalism...

--
gwern
import airframe Oates Meade Enforcers North BX Weekly b illuminati
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20080110/5c1a2d70/attachment-0001.pgp