Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions, The proposal has gone live, and there's a poll. Options

[Doc glasgow]

oppose, won't do enough good, says one user.

He's probably right but Boris' vote seems similar to the ones Luke, Larry, Kato, etc. were giving me shit for last time this came up. Is it time to rip into him for not supporting partial solutions?

After initially opposing solutions that did not go far enough, I changed my mind and I will support anything that moves even a bit in the right direction.

That said ... w.r.t. your opposition reasons: I'd rather have opposition from someone that thinks it doesn't go far enough than from someone who thinks it goes too far or that there is no problem at all or that LPs don't deserve any consideration whatever, or very little.

The problem is that this does not move in the right direct at all. It is utterly useless and will, if anything, delay or further frustrate attempts to do anything useful. I am opposed to it.

[Lar]

The problem is that this does not move in the right direct at all. It is utterly useless and will, if anything, delay or further frustrate attempts to do anything useful. I am opposed to it.

You might be right. You probably are.

But at least it's passing. Previously we were lacking consensus to move so much as one deck chair. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[GlassBeadGame]

I believe that this issue (or set of issues) that will serve as a watershed. Either serious and successful reform will come out of this or many of the loyal will have to admit that the site has become ungovernable and that no reasonable likelihood of internal reform remains.

[Doc glasgow]

The problem is that this does not move in the right direct at all. It is utterly useless and will, if anything, delay or further frustrate attempts to do anything useful. I am opposed to it.

You might be right. You probably are.

But at least it's passing. Previously we were lacking consensus to move so much as one deck chair. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The logic of the "but" escapes me here.

It is useless. It is passing. These are two facts, but I can't see how the second in any way mitigates against the first. If it were only mainly useless, then perhaps I'd follow, but it is totally useless.

Against that, the fact is that I fear it will be harder to get momentum for the change we need, or to persuade Jimbo or the Foundation to intervene on the basis that the community can't change.

Anyway I skin this it is bad bad bad. Sensible people should oppose it.

I believe that this issue (or set of issues) that will serve as a watershed. Either serious and successful reform will come out of this or many of the loyal will have to admit that the site has become ungovernable and that no reasonable likelihood of internal reform remains.

Easy.

The site is ungovernable and no reasonable likelihood of (meaningful) internal reform remains.

There, I said it.

I came to that conclusion over a year ago.

[Lar]

The logic of the "but" escapes me here.

It is useless. It is passing. These are two facts, but I can't see how the second in any way mitigates against the first. If it were only mainly useless, then perhaps I'd follow, but it is totally useless.

Against that, the fact is that I fear it will be harder to get momentum for the change we need, or to persuade Jimbo or the Foundation to intervene on the basis that the community can't change.

Anyway I skin this it is bad bad bad. Sensible people should oppose it.

I used to think this way but I changed my mind. If there is some chance that it will do some good, it's better than nothing. Maybe you're right, but if you are not? I aclnowledge that it may well, if passed, give everyone the out to say "we did it... ok? leave us alone with your inane talk of people's lives being ruined, we don't care. you have your toy and go away"

I believe that this issue (or set of issues) that will serve as a watershed. Either serious and successful reform will come out of this or many of the loyal will have to admit that the site has become ungovernable and that no reasonable likelihood of internal reform remains.

Easy.

The site is ungovernable and no reasonable likelihood of (meaningful) internal reform remains.

There, I said it.

I came to that conclusion over a year ago.

Here is your "red pill"... I have mine at hand already, but I am afraid that possibly, swallowing it requires koolaid too, as the other one did. Just a different sort.

[Doc glasgow]

If there is some chance that it will do some good, it's better than nothing.

Where is the chance that it will do any good? Where? Seriously?

Whereas, the chance it will make real reform even more difficult is obvious.

[Malleus]

If there is some chance that it will do some good, it's better than nothing.

Where is the chance that it will do any good? Where? Seriously?

Whereas, the chance it will make real reform even more difficult is obvious.

Step-wise reform (in fact baby-step-wise reform) seems to be the only way that it's possible to change anything on wikipedia. This proposal is probably better than doing nothing.

[Doc glasgow]

If there is some chance that it will do some good, it's better than nothing.

Where is the chance that it will do any good? Where? Seriously?

Whereas, the chance it will make real reform even more difficult is obvious.

Step-wise reform (in fact baby-step-wise reform) seems to be the only way that it's possible to change anything on wikipedia. This proposal is probably better than doing nothing.

But that's circular reasoning and makes no sense.

If this helped a little, then it might be a "small step in the right direction" and the "step by step" argument would be good.

But, first you need to show how this is even a small step in the right direction, and you can't show that by saying "step by step"

I believe this is a step to the side or in the wrong direction. Since it is not a step in the right direction, it helps not at all.

You can't progress forward, no matter how slowly, by taking steps, no matter how small, that don't more at least a little in the right direction.

I'm switching my neutral to oppose.

[privatemusings]

But, first you need to show how this is even a small step in the right direction, and you can't show that by saying "step by step"

I think the proposal's main (only?) strength is that it gets the 'flagged revisions' extension turned on. Isn't the general rule of thumb that once things like software extensions become available, they get used more and more over time - and that people find it easier to accept incremental expansion (creep?) of the functions?

You're pretty much asserting that this won't happen with flagged revisions - you're suggesting that the entrenchment / lack of rationality of the opposition is just too much (I think?).

The step forward here is getting the bloomin' thing turned on - I reckon from that point onwards it becomes easier to 'get people out of the way', to borrow Lar's phraseology. That's why I've supported the proposal - it's a sugar pill.

This post has been edited by privatemusings: Sat 21st March 2009, 8:53pm

[Doc glasgow]

But, first you need to show how this is even a small step in the right direction, and you can't show that by saying "step by step"

I think the proposal's main (only?) strength is that it gets the 'flagged revisions' extension turned on. Isn't the general rule of thumb that once things like software extensions become available, they get used more and more over time - and that people find it easier to accept incremental expansion (creep?) of the functions?

You're pretty much asserting that this won't happen with flagged revisions - you're suggesting that the entrenchment / lack of rationality of the opposition is just too much (I think?).

The step forward here is getting the bloomin' thing turned on - I reckon from that point onwards it becomes easier to 'get people out of the way', to borrow Lar's phraseology. That's why I've supported the proposal - it's a sugar pill.

So, you are suggesting that once this is turned on, we can start using it beyond the policy.

I suppose, ignoring "Semi-flagged protection" (which IS useless), "Full flagged protection" (which is just flagged revisions by another name) could be used on a wide variety of BLPs.

The problem is, if they start giving reviewing powers out widely, they whole becomes useless, as everything other than simple and obvious vandalism (which is not a BLP problem) will simply get reviewed by the "machine admins" that currently do such a bad job on patrols.

I have always believed that even placing all BLPs under flagged would be a mistake, because it would simply lead to it becoming vandalism protection, and useless in preventing hatchet jobs, and poorly referenced libels.

[LessHorrid vanU]

But, first you need to show how this is even a small step in the right direction, and you can't show that by saying "step by step"

I think the proposal's main (only?) strength is that it gets the 'flagged revisions' extension turned on. Isn't the general rule of thumb that once things like software extensions become available, they get used more and more over time - and that people find it easier to accept incremental expansion (creep?) of the functions?

You're pretty much asserting that this won't happen with flagged revisions - you're suggesting that the entrenchment / lack of rationality of the opposition is just too much (I think?).

The step forward here is getting the bloomin' thing turned on - I reckon from that point onwards it becomes easier to 'get people out of the way', to borrow Lar's phraseology. That's why I've supported the proposal - it's a sugar pill.

So, you are suggesting that once this is turned on, we can start using it beyond the policy.

I suppose, ignoring "Semi-flagged protection" (which IS useless), "Full flagged protection" (which is just flagged revisions by another name) could be used on a wide variety of BLPs.

The problem is, if they start giving reviewing powers out widely, they whole becomes useless, as everything other than simple and obvious vandalism (which is not a BLP problem) will simply get reviewed by the "machine admins" that currently do such a bad job on patrols.

I have always believed that even placing all BLPs under flagged would be a mistake, because it would simply lead to it becoming vandalism protection, and useless in preventing hatchet jobs, and poorly referenced libels.

I think that, in a nutshell, that these are the two different takes on the matter of whether this benefits the (agreed) problem of protecting BLP's.

I agree with Doc, it will not protect the insidious editing of middle tier (as regards public visibility) - sometimes top tier - BLP's, but it will stop the drive by vandalism of lower tier BLP's; those whose articles do not have anyone watching over them, and whose subjects may feel particularly powerless in regards to having a big website publishing wrong/insulting/libelous material on them.

Per PM, I agree that it is a matter of introducing a concept that is important here. Once, only Jimbo could block an editor, and then it was a small hand picked (by Jimbo) group and now it is anyone who is permitted by the community... Where do the "anyone can edit" zealots go from here, should this be turned on? Do they make a big stand at the next raft of proposals? Perhaps, but if this has the potential of incremental creep then there might be difficulty in formulating an organised response. Even if there is another battleground on the horizon, the fact that that section of the community has been overcome on a related issue is going to encourage hereto ditherers to support the protection of BLP subjects.

Speaking of ditherers - I had best place my name on the supporting list.

[Doc glasgow]

I think that, in a nutshell, that these are the two different takes on the matter of whether this benefits the (agreed) problem of protecting BLP's.

I agree with Doc, it will not protect the insidious editing of middle tier (as regards public visibility) - sometimes top tier - BLP's, but it will stop the drive by vandalism of lower tier BLP's; those whose articles do not have anyone watching over them, and whose subjects may feel particularly powerless in regards to having a big website publishing wrong/insulting/libelous material on them.

Per PM, I agree that it is a matter of introducing a concept that is important here. Once, only Jimbo could block an editor, and then it was a small hand picked (by Jimbo) group and now it is anyone who is permitted by the community... Where do the "anyone can edit" zealots go from here, should this be turned on? Do they make a big stand at the next raft of proposals? Perhaps, but if this has the potential of incremental creep then there might be difficulty in formulating an organised response. Even if there is another battleground on the horizon, the fact that that section of the community has been overcome on a related issue is going to encourage hereto ditherers to support the protection of BLP subjects.

Speaking of ditherers - I had best place my name on the supporting list.

Here is my problem.

I do not believe that "drive-by vandalism" is a significant risk to BLP victims. Sure, it makes wikipedia look stupid and annoys the hell out of the vandal-slayers. But ultimately, the obvious vandalism is seldom libellous because it is obvious.

If it is obvious to a "click-click" vandal-slayer, then it will be obvious to the reader. If it is obvious to the reader, then it is unlikely to damage the subject's reputation.

The real risk to the BLP victim is the edit which looks credible, perhaps even has an apparent source, but is actually malicious, distorting, or just lies.

If you flag-protect all BLPs, then you need an army of teenagers to be reviewing the edits - these people will only spot the obvious stuff. Win for the vandal obsessed - useless for the victim.

The only way in which flagged could be useful would be to deploy it on a targeted group of articles: those where there have been BLP violations that have not been spotted by vandal-fighters and quickly reverted. So, at least someone who's been the victim of credible libels or hatchet-jobbery knows that all edits to their article will be reviewed by a limited and diligent group of watchers.

As to the general BLP problem and how to prevent abuse, the ONLY solution is to remove all underwatched and thus undermaintained bios by significantly raising the notability threshhold. There is simply no other solution. The wiki model cannot maintain the hundreds of thousands of BLPs that it does.


In short, I am strongly opposed to enabling flagged protections on all BLPs, and in any case, I do not see flagged as anything more than a potential light weapon in the onslaught that is the BLP libel machine.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Sat 21st March 2009, 11:24pm

[Malleus]

But, first you need to show how this is even a small step in the right direction, and you can't show that by saying "step by step"

I think the proposal's main (only?) strength is that it gets the 'flagged revisions' extension turned on. Isn't the general rule of thumb that once things like software extensions become available, they get used more and more over time - and that people find it easier to accept incremental expansion (creep?) of the functions?

You're pretty much asserting that this won't happen with flagged revisions - you're suggesting that the entrenchment / lack of rationality of the opposition is just too much (I think?).

The step forward here is getting the bloomin' thing turned on - I reckon from that point onwards it becomes easier to 'get people out of the way', to borrow Lar's phraseology. That's why I've supported the proposal - it's a sugar pill.

I think that's absolutely right. That's what I meant by "baby steps".

As to the general BLP problem and how to prevent abuse, the ONLY solution is to remove all underwatched and thus undermaintained bios by significantly raising the notability threshhold. There is simply no other solution. The wiki model cannot maintain the hundreds of thousands of BLPs that it does.

I agree with that too, but I don't see the proposals as "either, or" as you seem to do. If I ruled the world I'd dump pretty much all of the BLPs, bur sadly I don't; I have to negotiate with idiots, and try to reach consensus with morons.

[CharlotteWebb]

If you flag-protect all BLPs, then you need an army of teenagers to be reviewing the edits - these people will only spot the obvious stuff. Win for the vandal obsessed - useless for the victim.

By all means Doc, help us find an army of adults instead.

[LessHorrid vanU]

I think that, in a nutshell, that these are the two different takes on the matter of whether this benefits the (agreed) problem of protecting BLP's.

I agree with Doc, it will not protect the insidious editing of middle tier (as regards public visibility) - sometimes top tier - BLP's, but it will stop the drive by vandalism of lower tier BLP's; those whose articles do not have anyone watching over them, and whose subjects may feel particularly powerless in regards to having a big website publishing wrong/insulting/libelous material on them.

Per PM, I agree that it is a matter of introducing a concept that is important here. Once, only Jimbo could block an editor, and then it was a small hand picked (by Jimbo) group and now it is anyone who is permitted by the community... Where do the "anyone can edit" zealots go from here, should this be turned on? Do they make a big stand at the next raft of proposals? Perhaps, but if this has the potential of incremental creep then there might be difficulty in formulating an organised response. Even if there is another battleground on the horizon, the fact that that section of the community has been overcome on a related issue is going to encourage hereto ditherers to support the protection of BLP subjects.

Speaking of ditherers - I had best place my name on the supporting list.

Here is my problem.

I do not believe that "drive-by vandalism" is a significant risk to BLP victims. Sure, it makes wikipedia look stupid and annoys the hell out of the vandal-slayers. But ultimately, the obvious vandalism is seldom libellous because it is obvious.

If it is obvious to a "click-click" vandal-slayer, then it will be obvious to the reader. If it is obvious to the reader, then it is unlikely to damage the subject's reputation.

The real risk to the BLP victim is the edit which looks credible, perhaps even has an apparent source, but is actually malicious, distorting, or just lies.

If you flag-protect all BLPs, then you need an army of teenagers to be reviewing the edits - these people will only spot the obvious stuff. Win for the vandal obsessed - useless for the victim.

The only way in which flagged could be useful would be to deploy it on a targeted group of articles: those where there have been BLP violations that have not been spotted by vandal-fighters and quickly reverted. So, at least someone who's been the victim of credible libels or hatchet-jobbery knows that all edits to their article will be reviewed by a limited and diligent group of watchers.

As to the general BLP problem and how to prevent abuse, the ONLY solution is to remove all underwatched and thus undermaintained bios by significantly raising the notability threshhold. There is simply no other solution. The wiki model cannot maintain the hundreds of thousands of BLPs that it does.


In short, I am strongly opposed to enabling flagged protections on all BLPs, and in any case, I do not see flagged as anything more than a potential light weapon in the onslaught that is the BLP libel machine.

Like my comments about being blocked, as it has never happened to me I can only guess at what distress it causes when it is done wrong (and sometimes even when it is done right, I assume) but a vandalised bio might be a source of real life pain to the subject, and might even have consequences in real life because people are stupid (how about a job interview when it is noted that the applicant appears to have a fetish for crossdressing per WP)? People are dumb enough to allow even blatant vandalism to effect their decision making process; big names take legal action against even the most ridiculous rumours since there will be people who believe any shit - this stops (or hinders) it being done. This is good.

I have kept the PM bit in my reply because even if flagging has drastic limitations (or perhaps worse, but I am not convinced) it is important to get it turned on because it breaks the stranglehold that the anti BLP protection grouping has maintained. To quote Winston; "It is not the end, nor is it the beginning of the end - but it is perhaps the end of the beginning". On the basis that this is an opportunity to check the influence of those who believe "there is already too much BLP protection" then it should be supported even by those who do think it worsens the situation simply because those who oppose it on principle need to be confronted and defeated at every opportunity (again Mr Churchill - he supported the detested Communists when it came to the need of defeating Nazism). Sometimes you cannot pick your battles in the campaign you are waging.

I think you should support - even if you think this particular feature makes the situation worse - because of the bigger potential picture. No problem if you don't, because I am aware you will continue working for a better solution, but it just makes the next battle that little bit harder.

[GlassBeadGame]

I believe that this issue (or set of issues) that will serve as a watershed. Either serious and successful reform will come out of this or many of the loyal will have to admit that the site has become ungovernable and that no reasonable likelihood of internal reform remains.

Easy.

The site is ungovernable and no reasonable likelihood of (meaningful) internal reform remains.

There, I said it.

I came to that conclusion over a year ago.

Here is your "red pill"... I have mine at hand already, but I am afraid that possibly, swallowing it requires koolaid too, as the other one did. Just a different sort.

Never went down that rabbit hole myself. (Is that the right allusion?) But I appreciate your candor.

[gadfly]

As to the general BLP problem and how to prevent abuse, the ONLY solution is to remove all underwatched and thus undermaintained bios by significantly raising the notability threshhold. There is simply no other solution. The wiki model cannot maintain the hundreds of thousands of BLPs that it does.

I agree with that too, but I don't see the proposals as "either, or" as you seem to do. If I ruled the world I'd dump pretty much all of the BLPs, bur sadly I don't; I have to negotiate with idiots, and try to reach consensus with morons.

I would also prefer just not have have any BLPs (or only very very few), and that would also help the idiocy of the notable persons section in many articles about places where some third rate reality TV "star", football player, or musician from some minor group gets repeatedly added to some place just because they farted in its general direction, once, allegedly.

This post has been edited by gadfly: Sun 22nd March 2009, 1:13am

[Malleus]

I would also prefer just not have have any BLPs (or only very very few), and that would also help the idiocy of the notable persons section in many articles about places where some third rate reality TV "star", football player, or musician from some minor group gets repeatedly added to some place just because they farted in its general direction, once, allegedly.

Are you a sock that I only operate when I'm in a state of altered consciousness brought on by twelve pints of Stella? I only ask because those "notable persons" sections really, really, do get on my tits.

I recall once being involved in a minor dispute about whether the fact that J. K. Rowling spent a night in a hotel in Didsbury made her a notable person to be included in that article or not. The argument was that she'd had the idea for Harry Potter while staying in the hotel. Dump all the football players, soap stars, minor celebs, and keep it historical I say.

[Dzonatas]

If there is some chance that it will do some good, it's better than nothing.

Where is the chance that it will do any good? Where? Seriously?

Whereas, the chance it will make real reform even more difficult is obvious.

If it was configured so that if and only if people that can flag a revision for public view is the user of there own user page, than that would actually solve a major portion of BLP like problems that normally don't get classified as BLP issues.

User: pages are BLP's when there is any content on them. It would be an improvement to just get rid of them, or at least make it look like every other blocked user. Why should I be treated so different?

I wouldn't have blatant libel, trollish remarks, and hateful messages as they still exist on my user page today.

People donate to wikipedia, which has supported such egregious behavior. I've ask Lar, FT2, and others to simply remove those remarks. How fraking hard is that to do? Or, should we really say that it is the active users that allow such donations to support such behaivor?

Like Lar said... ANYTHING step in the right direction is the right thing, yet I have patiently waited for someone like Lar or anybody to TAKE A STEP.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas: Sun 22nd March 2009, 4:18am

[MZMcBride]

Just as a note, this is actively being worked on (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fla.../Implementation ) and (fingers crossed) will go live hopefully sometime this month.