Will, look at the example I provided earlier in this thread. Established editors and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and leaving an article in a state of previous vandalism. How do you begin to address that problem?
I don't want to link to the revisions in question, as the attacks are quite nasty (look at the revert I made and what it removed). Please do go and look, and you will find a whole series of Huggle edits that reverted the most recent vandalism, but still left the article in an absolutely unacceptable state. Worse, this continued for a day or two until I spotted what had been happening. Carcharoth On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I did not suggest doc that "anyone can review". > Review what I said again. > I said that established users can review, that it should be an > automatic right at a certain point and that admins cannot remove that > right. > > That is quite different from "anyone". > > > -----Original Message----- > From: doc <[email protected]> > To: English Wikipedia <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 1:07 am > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs > > [email protected] wrote: >> I'm in agreement with David here. >> I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly > be >> interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or >> remove spurious details. I think we all do that a bit. Being a >> policeman is quite a different role. >> >> 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. >> >> Will Johnson >> > > 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). > > 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. > > 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? > > 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 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. > > For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff > to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. For once, let's listen > to > the Germans who seem to have some useful things to teach us. > > Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does > differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with > legitimate subject complaints? > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
