Sat 5th November 2011, 12:22am
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 3rd November 2011, 3:04am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 3rd November 2011, 6:09am)
TOG, I don't think that there are many here at the Review who are objecting to the normal vandal-fighters and janitorial types.
I object to them. They are the reason that 'anyone can edit'. If they just stopped their stupid 'vandal fighting' it would force Wikipedia to put reasonable controls around account opening. Plus, they make vandal fighting into what the community mainly does, the entire model around which Wikipedia operates. Bringing knowledge etc is a mere side effect.
That's an interesting point. I'm not willing to object to RC patrollers, given the existing structure, but what's being pointed out is quite true: the existing structure is only possible because of RCP, which is highly inefficient.
I know, I've done quite a bit of it. I'd pour over 50 contributions from the last minute (which was only a fraction of them) looking for anything suspicious, and by the time I found something, almost always it had already been reverted. And I assume that this was true for many other RC patrollers. So one has many, many people, doing the work of one. But Wikipedia never valued editor labor, not really. It came to value, to some extent, administrator labor
, but the hell with regular users!
On the other hand, when a global RCP user sees and reverts vandalism on Wikiversity, I not infrequently thank them. Not everything is caught, except for brief periods when some user really looks at everything, which can still be done on Wikiversity, though it can be difficult.
Wikipedia became seriously unwilling to examine structural problems, and practically paralyzed when it comes to proposing even simple changes, which, of course, is a structural problem. There are known solutions to many of the problems, but they are rejected because the status quo benefits the active core, which is the active core because it's benefited by the status quo.
Structure could, for example, be set up so that every edit
is examined in detail, possibly by more than one user, with less
labor than is currently being wasted on RCP. Hah! Try to propose it! "Not a bureaucracy" is what you will hear, because it would involved setting up structure, probably with some defined responsibilities.
Flagged revisions was a software solution that would make this simple. Rejected, right?
Bureaucratic control is okay for Raul654 (Featured article!), but not for ordinary mortals.