[WikiEN-l] So what does Flagged Revs feel like?

[Steve Bennett]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
> keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
> minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
> backlog builds up and it takes a few minutes for people to realise and
> work through it), then we have failed. If we can have every single
> article on flagged revs and still keep on top of them, then we should
> do that. If we can't, then we should keep it to just a small number of
> articles that really need it.

All of this implies some sort of well thought out and implement
workflow functionality in Wikipedia. Do we have this? Do we have real
queues of articles to be reviewed and automatic processes that
highlight articles that have been waiting too long? Maybe I'm out of
the loop, but I had the impression that with stuff like vandal
fighting and new page monitoring, each editor essentially acts
independently of any others, meaning there is a lot of doubling up of
work...and some pages slip through the cracks.

Do we have any way of combatting this with flagged revisions?

Steve