Hi, That makes sense, but I don't think this is going to happen. Flagged Revs were never really popular on english wikipedia and this is a real problem that should be solved somehow. These edits were always reviewed by people who are already using huggle or twinkle, this change couldn't make it worse, these people already do ignore them. I am talking about manual review (even in browser), this is not about reviewing itself, rather about mechanism how to collect the edits that appear to be suspicious for later review.
I just don't believe that flagged revisions are going to be used for anything useful on english wikipedia in next... 10 years? That doesn't mean I don't like Flagged Revs nor that I think it wouldn't be a solution for this problem. It's just that people don't want them on wikipedia... On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Arcane 21 <arc...@live.com> wrote: > That idea sounds like something already that could be done by the Flagged > Revs extension. > > Given that many of those suspicious edits could be extremely subtle, like > minor changes to mathematical equations and statistics, articles with lots of > potential for those types of subtle vandal edits would probably be better > handled by having them approved with Flagged Revs and allowing trusted > editors (like members of a particular Wiki Project based in those fields) to > review the edits. > > I doubt Twinkle or Huggle would be ideal for such vandalism, as it would be > easy to mistake legitimate edits for vandal edits, and automated vandal > detection/reversion processes would generally have a poor margin of error for > such subtle vandalism. > >> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:47 +0200 >> From: benap...@gmail.com >> To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - >> suspicious edits queue >> >> Hi, >> >> I noticed that there is a high amount of suspicious edits that may be >> vandalism but were never reverted because people who were dealing with >> vandals (using some automated tool) in that moment weren't able to >> decide if it was vandalism or wasn't. For example some "smart" changes >> to statistical data, dates, football scores, changes that look weird >> but aren't clearly vandalism etc. These edits should be reviewed by >> expert on the topic, but in this moment, they aren't collected >> anywhere. >> >> I think we should create a new service (on tool labs?) that would >> allow these tools to insert such edits to queue (or database) of >> "suspicious edits" for later review by experts, this categorized >> database / queue could be browsed by people who are experts on given >> topics and got reviewed / reverted by them. >> >> The database would need to be periodically scanned and all changes >> that were reverted would need to be removed from it. The people who >> reviewed the edits could also flag them as "ok". >> >> This way we could improve the efficiency of anti-vandalism tools by >> the amount of edits which are ignored or skipped these days. >> >> Some suggestions or ideas how to implement such a feature? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
