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

Revision as of 00:08, 21 June 2013

Revision as of 15:16, 14 September 2018

Line 864:

:The experience of the trial is clear that when large amounts of vandalism additions are occurring the administrators raise the level of protection to semi protection. No one still considers the tool to be useful in such a situation as you are commenting on. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

::Again, the example I give above came in the Dictator Wales' Fiat phase of the trial. If it's obvious vandalism and that's all it's ever going to be on an article, why fucking bother with PC when a rollback is just as effective and sucks away far less volunteer time? —<font color="228B22">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy]]''</font> <font color="00008B"><small>^{([[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Hyper Combo K.O.!]])}</small></font> 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Because if an edit is good the first reviewer to check it can mark it as reviewed. But if you just rely on recent changes patrol and watchlisting there might be a dozen editors check the same good edit, and most edits are good ones. Remember the least wasteful way to use volunteer time would be to simply implement it for all articles, as DE wiki did. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span>'' 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

::::You're making the assumption that a human reviewer will be knowledgeable and interested enough about the topic to be able to review it first-time around instead of punting it. This is an ultimately fatal assumption to make, especially as regards BLPs (especially corner-cases), areas of particular RW controversy, and as time passes. —<font color="228B22">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy]]''</font> <font color="00008B"><small>^{([[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Hyper Combo K.O.!]])}</small></font> 00:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::No, that's quite wrong. I've done PC reviewing, NewPages patrolling and RecentChanges patrolling (with Huggle, Igloo etc.). PC (and NP) are far ''better'' if people are going to punt. If I punt on something while Huggling or if I punt on something on my watchlist, there's no guarantee that someone else will pick it up. If I go to review a PC edit and I am not enough knowledable about the subject/article to decide whether it is a constructive edit or not, I can punt on it safe in the knowledge that another reviewer will pick it up. Same with NewPages: if I open up a new page and then for whatever reason I am unable to decide on whether it is a valuable contribution (or needs tagging, CSDing, PRODding, tagging for WikiProject, user warning, whatever), if I don't mark it as patrolled it still remains in the NewPages backlog for up to 30 days. With RC and anti-vandal patrolling, there is no guarantee that anyone else will see it and roll it back.

Line 884:

*Agree, minor vandalism like random word insertion is of little concern, since it usually gets reverted by a bot or an RC patroller within a couple of minutes or less. BLP attack vandalism can be more subtle, and would likely escape a bot or perhaps even an RC patroller. PC provides a method for slower, more methodical analysis of an edit. [[User:Ronk01|<font color="black">'''Ronk01'''</font>]] [[User talk:Ronk01|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 17:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*My experience is slightly different. PC appears to be of great benefit to articles that see persistent problematic edits at low to moderate levels (between once a week and a couple times per day). Two examples of articles that have seen benefits are [[Giada De Laurentiis]], which sees periodic insertions of juvenile comments about her anatomy or marital status, and [[Demagogy]], which sees persistent POV attempts to label currently active political figures as demagogues. Removing the immediate gratification of seeing a problematic edit being instantly featured combined with the extra attention gained by the PC review process has reduced the number of problematic edits needing to be dealt with and limited the impact of said edits when they still occur. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]} 00:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

*I recently went through our 700 or so articles which contain the word pubic, and corrected 23 of them. It was about three months since my previous patrol and some of the ones I fixed had been there for most of that time. Some of those 23 may have been genuine typos, but I doubt if many of them would have lasted long if the articles had been protected by pending changes. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span>'' 01:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

==what can we conclude of articles where vandalism is average with PC ?==

Line 959:

::::::::::::Jeremy ... ;) It's not a fantasy, u'll agree in the future ;) --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 14:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I'm afraid I never shall because I don't subscribe to the [[Shin Megami Tensei]] style of Mesia vs. Gaia weltanschaunng. —<font color="228B22">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy]]''</font> <font color="00008B"><small>^{([[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Hyper Combo K.O.!]])}</small></font> 21:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::Actually if any feature promotes ownership of articles it is the watchlisting process. Pending changes works in the opposite way as any reviewer who looks at the queue of pending changes could check a particular edit. So interest groups trying to edit Wikipedia would find things more difficult with pending changes. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span>'' 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::::But until then, if a reviewer is subtle enough, he can get away with approving edits that hide things something he likes/supports wants to keep secret, and maybe even *past* that timeframe if unknowledgeable reviewers act as unwitting accomplices. Again, the issue here is less the technical - and more the psychological and educational. —<font color="228B22">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy]]''</font> <font color="00008B"><small>^{([[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Hyper Combo K.O.!]])}</small></font> 00:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::{{od}} I think this whole "nefarious reviewer" business is a second order issue. It may present some problems or may be more subtle and hard to catch than current article ownership, but I doubt it will be a serious problem on par with our current vandalism or BLP problems. However I also feel this BLP business is a bit of a canard. No one is proposing to limit PC to BLP articles, but almost all the justifications given by the supporters relate to BLPs and BLP related hysteria. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 00:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)