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

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Jan 10, 2008 11:37 AM, Majorly <axel9891 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I disagree.  Edit lets you do anything.  Rollback lets you do one specific
> > thing.
>
> Edit lets you do one specific thing: edit.

Edit is functionally equivalent to rollback.  You can use edit to make
a commentless reversion to any prior version.
Rollback accomplishes the same thing, only faster.

On Jan 10, 2008 11:40 AM,  <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...

I think it would be most accurate to say that most vandalism that more
than one person jumps on has six people jumping on it.
The energy behind fixing vandalism is probably more than adequate, but
the coverage is spotty.

Increased rollback rights may reduce the minimum repair time, but I
would not expect it to help the median or maximum at all.