Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Archive 9

Flagged revision in the German Wikipedia
I think many doubts could be dispeled if you look at the enormous success that flagged revision have in the german wikipedia!--Don-golione (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which succes in the German wikipedia ? The current waiting time is 4.6 d/11.6 d for an edit to show with IP contributions down to 12 %, and the waiting is for the new statistics on DE. Mion (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4,6d-11,6d are waiting times for articles that are on nobodys watch list. I voted against flagged revision in 2008, but now I gotta admit that it is a great tool against vadalism. Especially when I compare it with the english wikipedia.--Don-golione (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer an encyclopaedia that is very accurate but out of date by days or months rather than one that has a chance of being inaccurate but updated by the second/minute. Remember when encyclopaedias were out of date by years or out of date at the time of printing? FlaggedRevs will make WP far more accurate but MAY in SOME instances mean that edits will be delayed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a baseless statement, there are no statistics that prove that the German wikipedia is more accurate than the English wikipedia, on the contrary, similar to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, the content from the German wikipedia with its out-of-date content makes its use as a source problematic. Mion (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who would use Wikipedia as a source? 203.24.135.66 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but are you suggesting the German wikipedia is 100 years out of date because of flagged revisions? Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Software vs Wetware
This won't work.

It's a lovely idea, and the technology is a wonderful idea. But it won't work.

The reason it won't work is that it will require too great of a change in the mindsets of the Wikipedia community.

Flagged Revisions will drown us, do you understand? IT WILL DROWN US.

Remember when Patrolled Newpages was introduced? We're barely keeping up with that - and we'd have drowned if it wasn't for me personally putting hundreds of hours in it. Do you realize that the instant that Patrolled Newpages was introduced, we immediately got a 720-hour backlog? And do you know how long it took to clean up that backlog?

Answer: IT NEVER GOT CLEANED UP. No one worked on it. Pages expire from the unpatrolled queue after 720 hours. It took months before I noticed the enormous backlog and started acting on it.

Most people only bother checking the first page of Recent Changes / New Pages. Some people will take the time to check the second. A few will check the third. Almost no one checks beyond the fourth. Except me, and the people I've pushed into doing this.

I have whinged people into creating software tools to make the task easier. Brion Vibber redesigned the interface specifically to deal with me, because the method I was using to go to the last page was putting an enormous strain on the server. And even with all this, the backlog is still hundreds and hundreds of hours. Most of the crap gets filtered out within the first 72 hours... but not all of it. And it only takes one piece of garbage to create another Siegenthaler incident.

If you have 1000 new articles, and 50 people volunteering to spend an hour checking 20 articles each, then at the end of that hour maybe 700 of those articles will be checked, if we're lucky. Because no one knows which ones have already been checked. Because no one bothers to click "patrolled".

This is the problem with Flagged Newpages - where we only need to check the article once. We are nearly drowning in it as it is.

With Flagged Revisions, we will need to check every version of every article. We will not have enough people doing that. We simply won't. We don't have the resources to cope with the smaller version; the larger version will be even less feasible. And before you object to my argument, go and patrol five hundred newpages. Click if they're good. If they're not, then click anyway, and then tag them for deletion-or-fixing-or-whatever. And work from the back end.

And then do it again the next day.

And the next.

And the next.

Then come back here and tell me that we can deal with Flagged Revisions.

And remember - patrol is a logged action, so I can see if you've actually bothered doing it. DS (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that it's not going to be implemented on most pages. Just a small number. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Waterboarding instead of mass drowning, then? Incidentally, I note that you have patrolled precisely 0 articles. DS (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One interesting property of Special:Newpages is that having the backlog has zero effect on the wikipedia. None. Nada. Zilch. It's strictly an "optional reminder that someone should take a look". I occasionally whack away a few hours from the end of the unpatroled backlog when I'm feeling like doing something mind-numbing, but it's the changes I make that have effect, not the fact that I'm working through the backlog.
 * In the case of flagged revisions, the result matters to what people are seeing. You still may be right, but there is a difference. --Alvestrand (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note AFAIK that it isn't true you need to check every version of an article. If 25 people edit an article, and then you review it, you see the difference between the current version and the last reviewed version. You don't need to look at the intermediate revisions unless you want to track down some dodgy edits or whatever but that's no different from nowadays. More importantly, flagged revisions is almost definitely going to cut down on the number amount of vandalism so there'll be less to actually review anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Pillar
All edits are equal, but some edits are more equal than others.--194.183.86.147 (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary wikipedia pillar should be to inform the reader. Hence some edits are better at fulfilling that purpose than others are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, not true at all :D. You haven't read exactly what Flagged revisions are. Sir Lothar (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * +1! SkyBonTalk/Contributions 13:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever said all edits are equal anyway? The Five pillars definitely doesn't say anything of that sort. It's an extremely silly thing to say. An edit which introduces 'X IS GAY!!!!!!!' 100 times into a page a long with a picture of a penis is clearly NOT equal to an edit that turns a stub into a featured article (not that this is likely even if we include off wiki and subpage work). To be blunt, anyone who thinks these edits are equal should even be editing wikipedia.
 * If you meant all editors are equal, while that's a common sentiment, most wikipedians would agree it isn't true. It's true that in some cases like determining consensus we generally don't concern ourselfs with who the editor is and per WP:NPA and WP:AGF under normal circumstances it's not acceptable to challenge an editor edits simply because you don't like the editor or his/her history even if the edits themselves weren't problematic. However semi-protection prevents non autoconfirmed and unregistered users from editing. Unregistered users can't create articles. Full protection prevents all but administrators from editing although they generally aren't supposed to (since full protection usually means ongoing edit wars) unless there's clear cut consensus. I'm pretty sure some of the abuse bots have treated anonymous editors differently and I'm even more sure the abuse filter does (I believe it can even be programmed to depend on the IP range). The recent changes page has options to hide different kinds of edits and anyone with any experience with patrolling or simple common sense is far less likely to check out edits by "X LIKES GAY BUTTSEKS!!!" then they are by someone they recognise as an experienced and trusted editor.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Survey on an other wikipedia
As for your information, in order to know if Wikipedia-fr users want to plan a procedure in order to have Flagged revision, a survey has been done. The result of this survey (not an official decision, just a survey to start the official procedure for the decision) is that users rejected the Flagged Revisions (for both types: the one used in Englsh Wikipedia, the one used in German Wikipedia).

Don't stop WP from being a wiki
I honestly believe that the majority of IP users are trying to help Wikipedia. Remember that not every IP is a vandal. Also, the vast majority of Wiki-users don't have an account, so IP edits just help us to see the average reader's perspective on things. If we added this policy, even if it only was for BLP articles, new users would be discouraged from creating an account and contributing to Wikipedia. If anything, this policy should only be used on semi-protected articles, but hopefully we won't need to implement it at all. I strongly oppose this idea. I recommend reading WP:HUMAN and WP:IP!=VANDAL for further information. I like pie it tastes good 03:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If 8% of edits are vandalism than another 8% must be constructive edits to revert vandalism which makes 16% of edits on en.Wikipedia a complete waste of time and energy. Proportionally, a lot of the energy of constructive editors is vasted on constantly monitoring pages for recent changes. As articles improve this is only likely to increase in the future. Flagged revisions improves the quality of editing and appearance of Wikipedia, as observable on other Wikis which implemented it, without restricting contributions by IPs. It is actually a more open system than the current one of protecting articles. --Elekhh (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it's good for BLP articles or do you want it on the whole wiki? Please clarify. I like pie it tastes good  03:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)