User:Nn123645/flagged revisions

I support the configuration of flagged revisions that does not keep the stable edit as the default view for the page, unless enabled otherwise on a page by page basis. The configuration that I would like to see implemented is basically the same as what has been proposed at for the trial with a few differences. The difference between this configuration of flagged revs and what has been implemented some other projects, like the German Wikipedia, the English Wikinews, and the English Wikibooks is that it does not require edits to be approved before they are shown to the general public. I would ultimately like to see options for readers to be able to choose to view an older revision, which has been reviewed to whatever level the user has chosen. I would also like to see a preferences option for which version to display by default implemented cookie for anonymous users, and in the database for logged in users, though currently (to my knowledge) Flagged Revisions does not have this functionality. I would like to see multiple levels of flagging, ranging anywhere from sighted, to externally reviewed or audited, with each level of the Article Assessment Scale being added to the levels at which a revision can be flagged. I do not support having the stable version shown by default for all pages in the mainspace, though may support having it enabled on a namespace other than the mainspace provided there is a good reason for it. In essence what I support is most points of the Flagged Protection proposal.

The backlog of revisions would be too massive, We simply don’t have the man power to use flagged revisions
The important thing to remember here is we don’t have to flag every revision. Having a flagged revision for an article is simply icing on the cake. The important thing is that it is available. Having flagged revisions can allow a user to quickly and easily navigate back to a known version of the page that has been checked against vandalism, thus allowing us to provide a greater level of accuracy and creditability.

Semiprotection already works; there is no need for a replacement
We are missing the point here. Flagged Revisions is not a replacement for semiprotection, it is another tool in the toolbox. Just as you wouldn’t say because you have a sledge hammer and that works, you never need a saw, you can’t say because you have protection, Flagged Revisions is pointless. Each tool has its different advantages; there are times when a sledge hammer can come in handy if you don’t need a clean cut, but using it for delicate work just isn’t a good idea.

Flagged Revisions is too intimidating for new users
The configuration of flagged revisions that I support would not change the way editing works for the majority of articles. Users would still be able to edit as they are now, and have their edits show up instantly. In essence what I support is using Flagged Revisions as a revision tracking system NOT a revision approval system.

Flagged Revisions gives a false sense of trust in articles
Flagged revisions is not a cure-all to the problem of credibility, it is simply a way for us to more effectively manage article content. Though I’m beginning to sound like a broken record the configuration I support wouldn’t change the way edits are made to the vast majority of articles. It only allows our readers to have more options in what content they view.