doc, I think you underestimate the number of good editors who do not want to be admins but would gladly take this on. Considering what an admin does, I can understand not wanting the distinction, but having a real role in making sure we have an acceptable content is another thing entirely. But you are certainly right that it won;'t solve the subtler problems--though I think experienced people develop a good eye for what is likely to be NPOV violations.
Option 1 above makes little sense to me, and I think to you also, because less watched does not = less notable. it just means less popular. We'll lose most of the senators. We'll keep the wrestlers. Option 2 will take a lot of tweaking. Since flagged revisions is essentially certain to be approved for a trial, why don't we wait and see how it works, as the first of the tweaks. If we change too many variables at once, we'll end up with a lot of rules that won;t really have been necessary. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM, doc <[email protected]> wrote: > Flagged revisions is not going to solve much more than obvious > vandalism. If we flag a good proportion of article, then we will need > lots of reviewers, and the level will be set at sysop of lower - the job > will be tedious and done by the lazy with an eye on edit count. The > problem is that subtle attempt to insert credible untruths, half-truths, > or facts spun to create an imbalanced biased picture of a person will > almost certainly walk through this. > > Only what is obvious to the average lazy reviewer will be prevented - > but what is obvious to the reviewer is not harmful, because it is also > obvious to the reader. Hence, general flagging will not solve the BLP > problem, it will not really even help. > > We won't dent this until we start to take maintainability into > consideration as well as verifiability. Sure, any individual BLPs /can/ > be written in good way, but, taken together, our wiki-structure /will > not/ maintain this level of BLPs without an unacceptable level of > harmful articles. Eventualism does not work here - because shitty biased > BLPS in the meantime are not acceptable. > > We have two choices: > 1) delete a large proportion of our lower notability (=less watched by > knowledgable people) BLPs. OR > 2) tweek the structures so that those motivated to be doing the quality > control (and that includes clued readers) are able to maintain more > articles. > > The second option means looking at: > 1) Spot banning anyone pushing negative POVs on a BLP. We should not > waste resources arguing with such people. > 2) Permanently semi-protecting any article where there's been a previous > harmful BLP violation that's not been reverted within a few hours. These > are the articles that our open editing has failed once - the subject > should not be open to it again. > 3) *Insisting on sourcing*. Yes, the patroler /could/ google and check > the verifiability of the thing for himself. But we simply DO NOT have > enough clued patroler to do this. We must put the onus on the editor > giving the information to "show his working" - so that the partoler (or > the casual reader) will be quicker to see any problems with the sourcing. > > Why should unsourced BLPs not be tolerated? Because we cannot maintain > any level of quality control as long as we keep making the checker do > all the work. You want it in? You source it - otherwise NO. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
