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

[doc]

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...
> 
> --
> gwern
> import airframe Oates Meade Enforcers North BX Weekly b illuminati
> 
> 

But when you check your watchlist, you DO revert the vandalism you see. 
Yes, rollback would be an advantage to you - it would save you some 
time. But to the project it would not make a significant difference to 
the level of vandalism that doesn't get removed - the stuff that doesn't 
get removed is because no-one has noticed it, not because they did but 
couldn't revert it fast enough. That's my point.

There is little benefit to the project, other than keeping some editors 
happy. Of course, creating a little happiness is not a bad thing - but 
it is outweighed by far by the time that will be wasted on disputed 
granting, refusals and removals and the disarray of doing something with 
  no settled consensus.

On another point. If 4 days is too short, why not 4 weeks?