Wikipedia talk:PC2012/Wnt

Why 300 edits?
Wnt, why would 300 edits assure that someone knew how to use the reviewer tool when 300 edits would get someone laughed out of RfA and when the Reviewer userright is such that Wikipedia could ill-afford someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're doing having it? — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 02:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal opinion aside, I'm pretty sure that a 300-edit barrier is completely off the table, due to reviewers now having the equivalent of RevDelete at their disposal on Article Feedback Tool Version 5. The WMF would never allow that tool to be handed out so liberally. —WFC— 02:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want participants here to feel like they're constrained by what people in a totally different project are doing. We can recommend whatever works best for PC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Thoughts on my proposal at WT:PC2012 to split the discussion in two, and discuss the simpler proposal here? - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay ... this doesn't seem to be working, I'll write something up on my own page, after I catch up on my copyediting and writing duties. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I didn't really understand your idea to split it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Different approaches
Wnt, I've been meaning to stop by here to say I'm intrigued by your ideas. I find it interesting that two editors who have consistently opposed PC (you and I) would come up with such vastly different proposals. My idea is that PC is way too dangerous unless every aspect of it is administered with meticulous care. What I'm seeing in your proposal (to oversimplify somewhat) is sort of the opposite: the idea that PC will be less damaging if it's essentially treated as a technical tool only—something that's part of the basic structure of the project, like autopatrolled status, with all the regular policies applying. Strangely, I could see either approach conceivably working, but not anything in between.

Regarding your wording about the WMF "[striving] to ensure that reviewer activities are protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act", I think that's probably a little optimistic. To be fair, Wikipedia is a groundbreaking project, in many ways an experiment in progress, so there's little or no legal precedent applicable to much of what we do. Nevertheless, I sometimes get the sense that the Foundation is perfectly willing to let us all be guinea pigs, and I think each of us should count on exactly zero support from them if something we do in good faith goes awry in ways that have legal implications. They may like the idea of PC out in San Francisco, but that doesn't mean they won't cheerfully let us hang ourselves with it. Their primary concern is quite properly the integrity of the project, of course, but I have found their lack of guidance troubling. In any event, afaik there's nothing that the community can write into policy that will oblige the Foundation to give us the time of day. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am also an editor who has consistently opposed the project, partly on the basis that it is overkill, a complicated and confusing way to deal with what has never been shown to be a significant problem beyond the reach of our normal methods. But if the community really wants to have it (something about which I am not the least sure, but seems for the moment to be the established position), we should do it in as simple, straightforward, & uncomplicated a way as possible, with as little formal structure as possible. Perhaps more complicated structures will be eventually needed, but I think it's folly to start off that way. I think Wnt's approach is very close to mine, except I would add the caveat that it apply to very narrowly limited types of BLPs and only BLPs for the start. If, contrary to everything I think about the way people work here, it actually turns out to be useful, it can then be expanded.
 * My view of the role of the Foundation in this,  is the more we can do this without their assistance, the better. My view of legal problems is that if the deWP hasn't run into any with their much more extensive use of it and the stricter provision of German law on related issues, then I can't see that we will.  DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)