Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/-Ril-'s suggestion

On Vandalism

 * Vandalism actually seems to potentially become more significant and a more serious problem under this system -- it might happen less often, but it would be harder for users to deal with quickly: if vandals use many sockpuppets (possibly other trolls by proxy) to vote up vandalized versions; there is a risk they would game the system. Under the current system, they have no technical measures that they can put on their side (to hide under)


 * Not all reverts are bad. Not all improvements are bad; under a rating system it would be difficult for readers to find the best version.  Suppose 100 people had voted on version 4, then you make a bugfix, version 5... those 100 people are gone, how are you going to convince people to dig into the history and find the better version to rate it up.


 * How do you handle ties between the ratings of two versions? Newest wins? At least with the reversion model, editors are able to make changes that matter effective quickly.


 * What about historical improvements being buried in vandalism? Surely people will not be convinced to scour deep into article history looking for versions they should vote for and trying to decide which set of changes is best --- the decision would be a potentially complex one, especially since people would be encouraged to edit the 'presentation' version instead of the latest: this has the potential to create many change conflicts which could be hard to merge in the end.


 * Counter to the principle WP:NOT. The version of the article should reflect an appropriate consensus so as to be as neutral as possible. --Mysidia (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

utterly useless proposal. If I add information to the article, I want to add it to the article, not to the version that happens to be 'featured' today only to be gone tomorrow. We would stop working on an encyclopedia, and work on a plethora of parallel encyclopedias instead. This, and problems with exploitation. You don't get information you don't like out of an article by voting it down, but by WP:CITE. dab (&#5839;) 11:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)