Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:42, 1 May 2022

Revision as of 19:10, 19 May 2022

Line 78:

::See above, that the "average delay for pages with unreviewed edits pending is 2h 58m" - and that was on a small trial, with a huge number of people keen to try it all out. What happens when the delays creep up to days? <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 04:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:::I'd wager that the 2h 58m is badly skewed toward the beginning of the trial -- initially there were few reviewers, now there are many, with more being [[WP:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer | added daily]]. Also, most of the simple cases are approved or reverted very quickly. There are some edits that sit there aging not because nobody reviewed the edit, but becuase, unless you are familiar with the subject, it's not always easy to tell if it's a valid edit or some form of "Sneaky vandalism". Perhaps an automatic approval of the edit if it ages to some limit such as 5 hours would prevent any lengthy delays or large queues of edits. But honestly, I don't check the queue as often as I previously did, since it's usually empty now, but that wasn't the case when I first started reviewing. [[User:Mojoworker|Mojoworker]] ([[User talk:Mojoworker|talk]]) 11:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it takes so long as most reviewers don't regularly check [[Special:OldReviewedPages]]. I've never seen more than five edits over there, and there's usually only just two. Being a reviewer, I don't check the place much anymore, as there's nothing to do there. [[User:Manishearth|<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">Manish</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">''Earth''</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Manishearth|<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">Talk</fontspan>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">Stalk</fontspan>]]} 03:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is voluntary work, vandalism is a time sink of voluntary work. German Wikipedia is right to protect quality work from vandals, making the quality voluntary work useless, requiring voluntary work just to keep the status quo. Some vandalism has system, when it attacks quality Wikipedia, when it attacks a neutral, unbiased, quality information source. In a way, some vandalism is a form of censorship. Any tool that slows down vandalism is valid. The objective is to diminish the required voluntary work, PC and reviewing or no PC and rollback are the choices. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 19:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Line 437:

*Absent a real experiment or any show of good faith all I see is a tool which the right people want to have implemented being kept around un the assumption that attrition will finally wear away at the opponents. We don't allow that kind of behavior from regular editors or admins so I'm at a loss to see why we should expect it from the foundation. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 21:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

* Pending changes is much better than the persistent proposal "Stop all IP's from editing". One thing I've noticed is that PC kinda got abandoned, because there just weren't enough things to be reviewed. Maybe if there was an IRC channel where new PCs could be reported, PC would be much more efficient. [[User:Manishearth|<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">Manish</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">''Earth''</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Manishearth|<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">Talk</fontspan>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">Stalk</fontspan>]]} 03:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

* '''Keep it'''. I am a strong supporter of PC, and feel that it should be a permanent part of our protection tools. More so, I believe that it should gradually take over and possibly even replace indefinite semi-protection. I believe that full protection and semi protection go against what makes Wikipedia special- being the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. However, I understand that, for many different things, protection is necessary to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. I support keeping full protection as it is now, but phasing out indefinite semi-protection and replacing it with PC. Whenever you indefinitely block a page from being edited by IP editors, who can offer a wealth of knowledge that any encyclopedia needs in order to grow, you block the possibility of expanding and improving Wikipedia. Temporary semi-protection should remain as-is as a response to vandalism and other things, which is why I believe that semi-protection has its use as well. What I want to point out very strongly is that I do NOT believe that PC should be applied to every page, or even to every BLP. It should only be applied to those pages that would otherwise be placed under indefinite semi-protection; otherwise, we risk destroying Wikipedia's reputation and the freedom to edit that many have come to identify with it. Many people have also stated concerns about a delay in PC acceptances. However, I believe that if PC was expanded, it could become something like counter-vandalism efforts are now, and could actually be done very quickly. If it is only applied to a couple of pages, then it isn't worth having, because nobody will want to monitor it on the off-chance that someone will edit those pages. However, I can't say that I even agree with the statements that it takes a long time for pending changes to be accepted, since every time I manage to see them, they're already "under review". --[[User:Slon02|Slon02]] ([[User talk:Slon02|talk]]) 23:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)