> What I *am* saying - and I suspect none of my countrymen > would dispute me in this - is that in Finland vandals are > vastly overrun by people of good faith editing and cleaning > after the vandals. So much so that the vandals effect is > easily negligible. Negligible over the long term, but also negligible > in the moment. > > And thus, flaggedrevs would not provide nearly any added > disincentive for vandals, but would add workload for the > good faith editors, and slow down content production. > > We are running flagged revisions on ru.wp for a year and a half now (250K articles when started, 400K now), and even though the community was pretty much sceptical in the beginning, now only a couple of vocal critics remain. To my experience, the main problem with flagged revisions is not so much vandalism which indeed gets reverted immediately but massive copyright violations. If an anonymous user has introduced a piece of 10K text in an article which has previously been 5K by a single edit this is always a point of concern. Checking whether this text violates copyright can easily take half an hour or more. Checking an old article can take two hours. Introducing flagged revisions one actually avoids the situation when several active editors spend their time for doing the same work.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
