Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/fact sheet

good place for discussion / consensus forming?

is this a good spot? - seems pretty good to me - though I'm not sure about the 'fact sheet' title of the page - p'raps in due course we'll need to move over to a proposal page or something? Privatemusings (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine for now, we can work ad hoc. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 08:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed configuration

The proposed configuration was written mostly by James F. and shares a fair number of similarities with the German Wikipedia's current configuration. Comments / thoughts / etc. are appreciated. (Note: Comments have been moved from the subject-space page to here and have been re-factored a bit.) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Privatemusings (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC) though I may support other implementations too![reply]

This isn't a vote. But, erm, OK. :-)

James F. (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe currently it's possible to set some higher metrics to allow more people to be in the +editor group automatically. Something like 500 edits seems reasonable (which is similar to the current rollback criteria). A higher metric avoids issues of sleeper accounts and such and reduces the workload on admins. That's the only real thing I see missing in the proposed configuration. Other than that, it looks good to me. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm concerned that, as FlaggedRevs will displace "traditional" anti-vandalism activity (RC patrol, with all the various bots and arcanery), we will generally become more lax as to following-up on vandalism (as it just won't show up). I really don't think it'd be a good idea to have automatic granting of what is (in effect) the ability to edit "protected" pages.

James F. (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to imply that not-logged-in visitors to an unsighted page will see nothing initially except the link to the "draft" page. Is that intended? I thought the German system showed the "draft" in this case, in which a more appropriate message would be something like "This page is an unchecked draft" (with no links, or maybe a link from unchecked to a WP:Simple explanation of page flagging). PaddyLeahy (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate minimal configuration

I'm honestly tired of a lot of proposals such as the one suggested initially on this page which advocates that sighted revisions should be viewed by default over more recent revisions for anonymous users.

In my opinion, it is vital that we not do this: not only does it compromise our founding principles that anyone should be able to edit openly by restricting what outsiders see, but it insulates the community against newcomers who would like to learn the ropes and shouldn't be restricted from contributing just to lessen the impact of annoyances such as vandalism. It is most certainly a restriction if users must have a +editor or +reviewer or any such group which controls what version of an article is visible, such that a new user cannot make immediately effective changes to many articles. Even autoconfirmed is a restriction which prevents new users from editing certain pages, and a restriction where people had to make many good, delayed edits to articles before being given the opportunity to make quick changes is simply unnacceptable. It's the source of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that has plagued many reports in the news about FlaggedRevs and its potential implementation, and I think that should a consensus develop to implement FlaggedRevs in such a way, such fear will have been justified.

In the meantime, a sensible plan is to implement the best features of FlaggedRevs without applying the "dangerous" ones; I propose, as laid out on the project page, that we follow a very simple system to initially implement FlaggedRevs. It's a system which is not exclusive of later changes: should we find that some part of the system is lacking, we have the resources to change its configuration or function. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]