[WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[Ray Saintonge]

doc wrote:
> wjhonson at aol.com wrote:
>   
>> So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all 
>> established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to 
>> unseat a member of the group.  It should probably be automatic at a 
>> certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature.  
>> There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for admins, 
>> and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly 
>> disruptive to the system even though long-term participants.  We don't 
>> need any more of that.
>>     
> This makes flagged no more than a tool to reduce obvious vandalism - and 
>   quite useless for protecting against real BLP harm (see my last post 
> for reasoning).
>   

Why should it be anything more than a tool?  My support of flagged 
revisions has absolutely nothing to do with BLPs; I believe that it 
should be available for *all *substantive articles.  My disappointment 
is that even that does not go far enough.  I would expand it into a 
rating system that evaluates every article across a small range of 
different criteria.  Unfortunately, for the present all it can 
realistically do is catch the obvious vandalism, but at least that's a 
start.

> If we have "anyone can review" then we have "any incompetent can review" 
>   and if admins can't quickly remove the reviewing right without process 
> and paperwork then any good-faith incompetent will continue to review.
>   

"Anyone can review" is just as powerful as "Anyone can edit."  Presuming 
incompetence is not a good way to encourage and retain new editors, and 
it is the height of arrogance to pretend the ability to make that 
judgement.  Your arguments sound more like what might expect of admins 
trying to protect their prerogatives.

> Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It 
> reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the 
> current state of any article. You think giving these same people more 
> work will solve the subtler BLP problem?
>   

Neither will throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  At the same 
time, I am not putting flagged revisions on a pedestal so that it can 
easily be shot down.  Any system is only as good as the persons applying 
it, but that's not the fault of the tool.

> Again, if the bad edit is immediately obvious to the reviewer, it is 
> also obvious to the reader - so it is not particularly damaging to the 
> subject.
>   

I don't follow your reasoning on that. If someone is calling the subject 
an "asshole" that's pretty obvious; how would it not be damaging to the 
subject?

> I am of the opinion that full flagging will make little or no difference 
> to the BLP problem. (That said, it can't do much harm - so let's try 
> it). However, the current idiotic proposal is utterly useless and 
> conterproductive.
>   
Amazingly, I agree with your last point, even if it is from the opposite 
perspective of a supporter of full flagging.  You're probably also right 
that it will have little or no effect on the BLP problems.  No military 
campaign succeeds through aerial bombing alone; you have to put boots on 
the ground. The recent proposal tries to do too much at once, perhaps in 
an attempt to placate the opponents of flagged revisions, but only 
manages to emasculate itself.

> For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff 
> to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. 

They are two different issues.

Ec