Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey/Implement Flagged Revisions for all BLPs

Support (FL)

Supports (FL) 1–100

#Support per Pascale Tesson. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ja, this will work. ► RATEL ◄ 00:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. My choice.
   T) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Choice. But, of course, there are a number of highly divergent ways that flagged revisions could be implemented. CIreland (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I have a dream that one day Wikipedia will be a respectable source of quality information, and not the punchline of hack comedians. WilyD 19:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Makes sense. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. Flagged revisions make semiprotection largely unnecessary. Eventually I'd like to see everything in article space using flagged revisions but this is good for now. Also has the advantage that IPs can actually make substantial edits and changes to BLPs they just need to get approved. Also removes the issue of someone starting an article that they can then not edit which occurs if we semiprotect. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Most anonymous edits to BLPs are good and we don't want to lose those. Flagged revisions is a reasonable way to protect biographies from the bad anonymous edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. We should really be pushing towards this for all articles, actually. The question is whether it will scale to the size of enWP, or even just enWP's biographies, but the deWP experience seems to indicate that it should. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yes, yes, yes. If it can be activated on articles selectively, I would personally spread it to all the BLPs I could, and I'm certain that others would help pitch in. Cool Hand Luke 20:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Definitely. Vastly preferable to semiprotection - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Absolutely, I have long supported this, far better than semi protection (which I would strongly oppose) for the strong reason that it preserves the ability of anybody to edit, while preventing the casual reader from seeing vandalism/libel. Semi protection would either lead to BLPs being hopelessly out of date, a impossible surge in requests for edits and the moving of vandalism to talk pages and other articles. Flagged revisions enables the reader to update/make corrections as necessary which is the great strength of wikipedia and I am confident (and would help ensure) we could keep BLPs flagged quickly. Davewild (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Flagged Revisions would be a big step forward. Semi-protecting a substantial portion of our articles is just too antithetical to Wikipedia. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Second choice. Much preferred to protection. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Second choice. shoy (reactions) 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Second choice, or step on the way to where we need to get. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Prepared to endorse this. Reasonable balance between dealing with BLPs in a responsible way and encouraging free anonymous participation. Would prefer some selectivity in which BLPs are flagged, but not a deal breaker. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just to gauge general feelings, the nitty-gritty details could include partial or selective activation of flagged revs on BLPs. (If this isn't yet technically possible, we could buy Brion something nice for Christmas). WilyD 21:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, but the section header said "implement on ALL BLPs" ... Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, we needed to finally have THIS discussion, rather than pointless little "What if this? What if that?" chats under FLAGGED and the protection policy and 100 other places, to see who actually supports what in general--is all-semi-BLP a good/dumb idea? Is all-flagged-BLP a good dumb/idea? And based on this, the appropriate next steps can then be looked at, and shaped up. The specifics--"Protect all via a transclusion of a widget under the positron matrix"; "Flag rev all via the MacGuffin's inverse matrix", and so on, can be hashed out later and doesn't require 1,000 people to say Yay! or Nay! This is just to see if the ideas even have legs.

    T) 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

17. I don't see how this is technically possible without some sort of BLP namespace, but, yes, do it. John Reaves 21:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Probably the best bet. We need to do something about the fact that BLPs of relatively obscure people (which in many cases will be their first Google hit) can be targeted with vandalism that stays for long periods of time. The Siegenthaler incident is probably the most notorious case, but such incidents can and will happen again if nothing is done. At the same time, cutting off all anonymous BLP edits seems to go too far. *** Crotalus *** 21:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. I was leaning towards semiprotection as the best approach, but Crotalus' response made me think it over a bit. Our biggest problem for BLPs is when a little-watched article is dinged, often by someone with a grudge against said person; these are the ones that come back to bite us in the collective ass most often. Flagged revisions would provide a level of oversight to the process, and ensure that we don't have an issue where the first anyone here hears about a problem is when it's being frothed about in the media. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I sort of started an initiative to watch unwatched pages from Special:Unwatchedpages (pretty much dead now due to technical problems with the page), if we could do that on a more massive or potentially semi-automated scale, that would help a lot. John Reaves 10:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20. Support -- actually I would like it stricter than the current German implementation. Currently "affiliated editors" seem to stake out notable BLPs or groups thereof, and we would need to make sure that the person accepting the flagged revisions was aware of this. Collect (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Even short term vandalism or poorly sourced edits can be harmful. We can do better and should. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. I like this option too. —
    ² 23:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support, first choice. We try it first on BLP's, then if it helps stabilize content and reduce the amber waves of crap that some of our high-profile BLP articles are hit with throughout their time of notoriety, we expand the flagging to ALL articles.GJC 23:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Semiprotecting them all is a bit extreme, but this seems an ideal compromise. IPs aren't stopped from editing, their edits just have to be processed by, say, a rollbacker. I presume we can tweak the settings on a per article basis so it applies to, say, all non-admins for some articles, or so only admins can 'sight' the revisions or something? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. It's worth a try. This may be better than semi-protection because of the essential problem with banning editing by IPs: barriers to editing tends to favor editors with stronger POVs. Flagged revisions could change the POV balance less than semi-protection while still reducing vandalism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Weak support I am concerned this will be unwieldy in terms of time used up implementing it, but certainly more owrthwhile trialling with BLPs than with FAs or GAs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Second choice, prefer flaggedrevs on all pages. Mr.Z-man 00:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support evolutionary step as a reliable encyclopedia.
    What up? 00:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
29. Support in the alternative; I don't think singling out BLP is that useful, but if we have a choice between flagged revisions on all pages and only on BLPs then I'd rather have at least the BLPs protected. — Coren ^(talk) 00:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Agree with Coren above. I'd prefer indefinite semiprotection of BLPs and flagged revisions of all articles, but better this than nothing. – 
    iridescent 00:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
31. This seems ideal to me, if technically feasible. Deli nk (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. I could support some 3-month or 6-month trial of this to see what happens. I would prefer this to semi-protection for all BLPs. As of right now, Category:Living people has 324,956 articles in it. About 1 in 8 articles on the English Wikipedia is a BLP. Looking at the recent changes to BLPs, it looks like a BLP is edited about 12 times per minute, or once every 5 seconds. I would prefer we try out FlaggedRevs on BLPs first, before we even think of enabling it on all articles — to see how out of date the 'sighted' BLPs get and what kind of backlog results. But I think there needs to be a clear plan in place (how someone gets/loses 'reviewer' status, how many 'reviewers', when and when not to 'sight'/'unsight' a page) before it goes into effect. Vandals could still game the system, but I guess if you make it a real chore for them you could dissuade most of them. But once FlaggedRevs is enabled on all BLPs, will all BLPs be 'sighted' as is, or will 'reviewers' have to review them all one by one? If they need to first be reviewed one by one (which I think is the case), how long will it take to do the first sweep ('sight' some revision of all 324,956 BLPs), and who's going to do it? --Pixelface (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Second choice, some improvement, but a little clunky. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. My first choice. As mentioned above, semi-protection may inadvertently encourage editors with a stronger POV (i.e.: the barrier to edit is higher); and affect the neutrality of our articles. I hope that we move to try this solution before semi-protection. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Seems to be the best course of action, keeping the "anybody can edit!" philosophy intact, while also affording more protection to the subjects of BLP articles. Definitely worth a trial, if nothing else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    This is the best alternative over two extremely unsatisfactory situations: semi-protection on all blps that would be an extraordinary break in our open-editing wiki spirit, and a situation where blps are largely unmonitored and prone to vandalism and wp:blp violations. I think it's manageable, but we'll still probably face huge backlogs. Cenarium (Talk) 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing support: Passive flags could allow to monitor blps while keeping editing open in this area. Making a flag active is a form of protection and should be a per-article decision. Cenarium (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

36. Support. This is the perfect middle ground. It allows editing, but at the same time builds in a safeguard against vandalism. The only possible problem is scaling, but we can't dismiss it before a trial has been done. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support There is a lot to discuss regarding the details, but some form of FR for BLPs seems like the best option to me. --Tango (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Second choice.Peacock (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Flagged revisions are very promising, but it is a big change so we need to go slowly and carefully. There are real concerns about backlogs which need to be addressed and trials are probably the only way to find out. And of course there are many details to be filled in. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's known that the details need to be filled in. What we want to find out is whether it's worth trying to fill in those details, by seeing how people feel about flagged revisions, whether it's likely the community will give a mandate to implement them once the details are worked out. WilyD 16:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

40. Conditional Support -- I think flagged revisions are a wonderful idea, but should be strictly kept to featured articles (helps us look good) and biographies of living people (legal reasons). I am strongly opposed to them going farther than that, I think it would break the spirit of wikipedia and turn it into a cool kids club of people who can commit revisions. --ScWizard (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support I completely agree with ScWizard above. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support; appears to be an excellent idea, and if it turns out to be unworkable we can turn it off. It's worth a try. I also think we should only try one thing at a time: this would be a good preliminary test for flagged revisions in general on en:. Antandrus (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Weak and qualified support—while on the one hand I strongly support the general use of FlaggedRevs, it is my impression that its use here implies a sighted-revisions-visible-by-default implementation of FlaggedRevs, which I strongly oppose. FlaggedRevs would be helpful in combatting vandalism, but I can't shake the feeling that a sighted-revisions-visible-by-default implementation constitutes effectively denying editing to those not allowed to sight edits (in other words, most people). I'd accept sighted-by-default FlaggedRevs to any more extreme protecting-BLPs proposal, however, as it's got many advantages over other schemes. I must note that BLPs are one of the few areas where sighted-by-default FlaggedRevs would be acceptable to me: I don't want any implementation on BLPs to be used as an excuse to enable sighted-by-default FlaggedRevs elsewhere. My preferred implementation of FlaggedRevs would make the "sighted" or "unsighted" status visible as a means to aid more basic BLP-monitoring efforts. Sighted-by-default FlaggedRevs would be preferable to semi-protection, in any event. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support I generally support, but I think it may be impractical to implement FR over all BLP articles at the first stage. It is better to select several thousands most vandalized BLP articles and enable FR over them. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. support - I like this as a test certainly, one that we will find reduces both the blp-vandalism, and complaints about it from blp subjects. Not sure about full article implementation of it though. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Do this, do it now - we have other things we need to work on.--Tznkai (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support It's well past time to at least try this idea. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support without question, per my previous comment above. We must do what we can to protect BLP subjects from harm - particularly those that are lower profile - and this seems to be a very good way of doing this. So a few anons and newer users have to click another link to see their changes (until they are sighted) - that seems a small price to pay given the potential for harm to BLP subjects. Pfainuk talk 00:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Do it - Dan
    send/receive) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
50. Support TimBuck2 (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Second choice per my concerns about how much time this will consume.
    talk) 09:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
52. Distant second choice. If we must let IPs edit BLPs, at least have the revisions be flagged. SDJ 15:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Yes, so long as we take things slowly and organize the resources needed to make FlaggedRevs work. My first choice: seems to be the best option.
    AGK 16:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
54. Very weak support - I think this would be a good way to see how flagged revisions work, but I am concerned that it would disenfranchise any editor without reviewing rights. 18:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC) [That was User:J.delanoy - Dank55]
55. Support - this is a good idea, certainly worth trying. --Aude (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. By all means. — Dan | talk 21:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. I have no objection to them wholesale either, but BLP's provide a useful test to discover any major issues. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Good idea, the only question is how.
    ^Pounce! 13:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    If there is a widespread feeling that this is a good idea in general, "How?" is the next question to ask. But "Is this worth pursuing?" is the logical place to start. WilyD 15:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

59. Certainly, though I'd rather create a class of "BLP editors" who have to openly declare their identities and be of an age to be legally accountable in a court of law GTD 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Yes. And add sprotection also to reduce antivandal-load (as noted above). If we lack manpower for promotion, then that's a sign our notability criteria are too low and we have too many BLPs. Finally, although it's true IPs add a significant fraction of good content, nobody knows the answer to what would happen if they were forced to register. You can guess that they will; you can guess they won't. The truth is: nobody knows. So try the experiment. SBHarris 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Everyking (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. –Moondyne 10:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - This will limit the damage caused by BLP violations (including by users who register, wait 4 days and make 10 edits first), while allowing the BLPs to remove false information as needed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support, the least damaging option. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 20:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. 2nd choice for me. I am dubious about how to make this work. There are a LOT of BLP articles. I also fear it would expose Wikipedia to greater liability. Or that it might even expose ME to liability, if I did something that made an article version flagged "good"... and I had missed something that someone found unacceptable. sinneed (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support, this is my preferred option. Allowing everybody to edit, but removing the risk of people being harmed by vandalism. A balance of our rights and responsibilities. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support I like this option. It provides a nice effective degree of oversight on the public face of the encylopedia without preventing continued editing. Mfield (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support once enough experience with flagged revisions is gained. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support This would be my first choice (and would render semi-protection somewhat moot). As with others, I'd like to see this for all of article space, but that's a matter for later debate - BLP seems the obvious place to start if we must do it piecemeal.Anaxial (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. This would help implement some control without turning away potentially useful contributions. – Joe Nutter 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support It will provide more control over the articles while still allowing anyone to edit. And it will provide a good (large) test case for Flagged Revisions. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. I'm happy with this. Majorly ^talk 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Another excellent and pragmatic solution. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. A step in the right direction for persons whose real lives may be (and have been) harmed by biographies that anyone can edit. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Reluctant Support I think that flagged revisions is going against what Wikipedia stands for, but it seems to be necessary. Captain panda 00:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Definitely.   jj137 (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - seems a decent way of telling everyone which versions they can fully trust without assuming everyone is going to vandalise the pages.
    talk) 01:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
78. Strong Support. I see this as much more effective than semi-protection. I also see it as a way to allow people to begin trusting information on Wikipedia more. I can see no arguments against this option which even come close to outweighing the good. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support - at least to try out. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support on a trial basis. I am concerned about how flagged revisions impacts the spirit of Wikipedia as well but vandalising BLPs is a real problem worth trying a solution like this. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Full Support of this option. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. With some caution.
    Aaron Schulz 08:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
83. Support. I like the idea of turning it on for BLPs, seeing how it goes. With flagged revisions, "anyone can contribute" remains true. I would be in favour of flagged revisions for other articles (FAs for instance) if it worked for BLPs. My only qualm is that it will be impossible to measure how many well-meaning anons we will lose as long-term contributors, when they submit a test edit only to find they apparently can't edit: to guard against this with flagged revisions, the immediate feedback will have to be loud and clear that their edit worked but hasn't been published yet. Wikipedia is effectively a publisher: I doubt that the community would write "we will immediately publish anything and everything submitted to Wikipedia for any purpose by anybody" into policy, but it is the current reality. For this reason, I have sometimes thought the emphasis on "editing" of the maxim "anyone can edit" out of kilter with Wikipedia's purpose: there's more to contributing than "editing", and as stated the tag line encourages purposeless edits as well as constructive edits. Don't get me wrong, I am strongly in favour of allowing anyone to edit. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Agreed! BillMasen (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - Sounds like the best choice. Skinny87 (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support - hell YES! Xenus (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support as test Pragmatically, we're at greater risk of law suits in this area than anywhere else. It's sensible therefore to exert better control over such articles. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support seems like a great idea. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support flagged revisions in some form for all articles, therefore obviously for BLPs. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support for all BLPs, with the possibility of requesting flagged revisions for other articles if necessary. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support with many reservations Ultimately, I think flagged revisions will be a plus for Wikipedia and they seem like a particularly reasonable option for BLPs. But I don't think that flagged-revs should be used only on BLPs, nor do I see any reason to use them on all BLPs. In particular I think it's idiotic to use BLPs as a test case for flagged revs. For one thing, BLPs represent something like 10% of the wiki and most are low-traffic, low-activity articles for which the cost/benefit ratio of flagged revs is atrocious. Ideally, the solution should be selective implementation of flagged revs on individual articles and by "selective" I mean "selected by individual editors who think that a given article could benefit from flagged-revs". This would avoid unnecessary backlogs. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support BLPs would be the logical place to start an experiment with sitewide Flagged Revisions. Priyanath ^talk 23:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
93. Weak Support per Jimbo's plan to test it for a few months and re-examine it's effectiveness. I can live with that, provided we have real research on our side to help determine what affect it has had when the trial period is up.
    talk) 04:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
94. Second choice - better than nothing but IMHO not really far enough. At least flagged revisions are a step in the right direction - hopefully the test will prove me wrong and this measure will be enough to effectively eliminate vandalism on BLPs--Cailil ^talk 12:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
95. Not so keen on flagged revs everywhere, not even for FAs, but for BLPs yes. A good test case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
96. Flagged revisions are working very nicely on dewiki (despite a small number of vocal naysayers) and where introduced there with strong consensus after extended testing. They might work just as well on all of enwiki, but even only for BLPs they are definitively a good idea. They offer the same benefits as semi-protection, but without any of its disadvantages. --Latebird (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support - if the revision is flagged, it will give another user a change to look at the revision and see if it something as simple as a minor edit or something more complex as new information on the person that no one was aware. It can also allow to revert any vandalism if needed. Chris (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support This proposal might be a good way to improve article quality. Seems reasonable to test it on this subset of articles. GrouchyDan (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support selective implementation, not just on the highly visible articles, as problems are more likely to occur on articles not watched or edited by many users. It should be used on BLPs and other articles protected due to
    editsemiprotected}} templates, which many people will only use for specific corrections and updates, and provides a more useful revision history than use of a separate draft article such as Talk:Evolution/draft article. Full protection would still occasionally be needed, but only for problems such as oversight issues, legal issues (e.g. Office actions) and content disputes. —Snigbrook 13:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

101. Support. It is quite apparent that BLP articles can, in some cases, cause harm to the subject. So why can we allow them on Wiki at all? Oh yes, that was because Wiki articles are always cross-read by other editors, and these will revert any libelous statements etc. per
     WP:BLP
     . But does that actually work in practice? I think that the answer at this point, with 300.000+ BLPs and no further means of control, must be: no one can tell. This proposal will allow us at least to ensure that at least one other editor has reviewed the article, and found it OK. That's clearly an improvement over the status quo. Even in case that we won't be able to review all changes in a timely fashion, it will at least allow us to find BLPs which lack attention.
102. Support. What harm could it possibly do?Jonathan321 (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     I support such a proposal for controversial

     WP:BLPs would be ridiculous and would kill the wiki. Jonathan321 (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

     ]

103. Support, the flagged reision should be shown to the public to default, it protects the dignity of the subject described in BLP.
104. Support. We obviously need to change something about BLP articles (
     the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Articles that need to be protected will be protected by consensus. As of now, flagged revs is the least worst solution. I think people are forgetting that this would simply institute a trial run of flagged revs. If the backlog is huge (which I expect it will be), and it' that big of a problem - we'll vote on getting rid of it. What's the loss of a trial run? Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
105. Support for frequently vandalized pages. Doing it across the board will frustrate and discourage anonymous editors. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 01:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support Not all anonymous IPs are vandals. If it doesn't work out then semi-protecting all BLPs is the next best thing.
     talk) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
107. Support. Semi-protecting would be more functional in practice, but since this has the more support, let's give it a go. Rebecca (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support a trial for a few months. I think for BLPs we are justified in valuing reliability before spontaneity but I'd oppose flagged revs for all other articles. In cases of sensitive non-BLP articles (e.g. about religion) I hope they are protected by a large number of watching users. eug (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support. Flagged revisions are certainly worth trying. (The German wikipedia's experience is very encouraging.) However, working out how to best use them (eg., sighted vs QA process vs ...) will not be easy or quick. The BLP articles are a very good test case for this experiment. CWC 14:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support - yup - Alison ^❤ 14:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support Aye, Woody (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support - a good start. If we have a group of very little things like this, we might be able to tackle most of the issues without having to worry about damaging the encyclopedia as a major protective measure might do. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support Our best option. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
114. Strong Support - I think this option is the best; it is important to have some controls, particularly over libelous content.
     NoVomit (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
115. Strong support - I like the idea more than semi-protection, actually, but support either.
     vecia 03:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
116. Support: We need to make a change to better be able to deal with POV pushers, vandals and trolls operating from IP accounts. Flagged revisions for BLPs would be a good first step. Implement for a set time period, evaluate, reconsider our options. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support This would be my second choice, after semi-protection. Enigma ^message 16:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support I'd like to see flagged revisions for all pages, but this option appears to me more palatable to the editing community.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support I would like to flaged revisions for BLP.One of the main reasons is libelous content. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support. This would prevent libelous content from being visible to the public, without preventing anonymous users from adding good content. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support per Army1987 above. Semiprotection has its place, but it's pretty blunt, blocking good-faith anons while only doing so much against savvy long-term problem editors. J. Spencer (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support I would prefer semi-protection, or the combination of both, but this would allow anons and new accounts to contribute. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support as a three-month test with a community conversation during the final month to see whether the community wants to continue, modify, expand, contract or abandon this approach. David in DC (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support this is why the capability exists in the first place, we should use it. Timmccloud (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support. Much better than semi-protection, this still allows anyone to edit, it will just keep the damaging edits from being damaging. When you look at the data that has been collected, that is simply too many damaged revisions that are being shown to the public. It's unacceptable when we have a workable alternative. - Taxman ^Talk 14:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support should have been done ages ago. Misarxist 15:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support, albeit weakly. There are some flaws in this, but it seems to be mostly good as far as sufficient protection goes. —
     Hello! 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
128. I generally think it is a worthwhile idea; although think this so-called "poll", which asks every editor for an opinion without actually informing people only serves to polarize people's opinion and makes it very hard to reach a rational solution. See #Actual experience with flagged revisions for what I have in mind. — Sebastian 03:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
129. Cla68 (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support, en route to all articles. I agree with Gmaxwell in the next section that in terms of actual harm reduction, excessive focus on BLPs can obscure the fact that non-biographies can be just as harmful when incorrect, misleading, or unbalanced negative personal information is present. But it seems prudent to do a partial implementation of FlaggedRevs before going whole hog, and BLPs are a fine subset of articles to start with. As Sebastion points out above, and observations from other projects corroborate, FlaggedRevs seems to work pretty well in practice and most of the direst predictions about it are not borne out.--ragesoss (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
131. Comment I support the principle, but oppose doing this by half-measures. Eclecticology (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support (Almost) all the advantages of semi-protection but still allows the anons to contribute, GDonato (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
133. Weak support. Wikinews and Wikibooks have flagged revisions, but I have the feeling it might get a little messy and hinder breaking updates. Who will be granted flagging rights? Either way, it's definitely a lot better then semi-protection for all BLPs. ~
     U) 17:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
134. Weak support. This too may cause more problems than it helps. Seems to be another layer of red tape.
     -- Banjeboi 01:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
135. support. I'd like to see flagging go on to other articles, too. --moof (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
136. support in theory. I'm stuck on the fact that someone has to go around and tag the damned 'last best version': who will be the final arbiter and what in the event of disagreement? how will articles' tagging be kept up to date? - many articles are hopelessly out of date as it stands. What about the frustration of registered editors who click on the edit button to find the actual version to work on bears little resemblance to the one xhe saw? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     The

     talk) 12:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)][reply

     ]

     The German implementation takes three weeks or longer to sight articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Probably because the German implementation uses flagged revisions for everything, not just BLPs. There are 331.OOO BLPs here[1], whereas the German wikipedia has 845.000 articles[2] and less contributors. We could also try with a subset of BLPs, for instance the 10.000 most viewed[3] in December 2008.

     talk) 03:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

     ]

137. Support; if it is implemented correctly; Considering the volume of articles on Wikipedia, this will be hard to implement, and like the previous member said; who will be the final arbiter? --Deenoe 00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support if flagging is not a hassle. The
     talk) 11:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
140. Support - as someone who has spent time fighting vandalism, I believe that the current situation is untenable, and this solution may turn out to be a good option. --
     HighKing (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
141. Support pending some actual tests of flagged revisions to make sure they work.
     talk) 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
142. Strong Support. Again, see the article
     WP:COI. Switchintoglide (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
143. Support. This allows IP users to edit the articles, so is much preferable to semi-protection.-gadfium 19:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
144. Mild Support - but ONLY if Flagged Revisions is made significantly more intuitive to use (the labs system is truly awful at the moment, so I am currently opposing it's live implementation). Stephenb (Talk) 14:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support. bibliomaniac15 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support per some arguments above familytree101 (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support, good test case. -- Avenue (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
148. Medium Support At minimum, BLPs should employ Flagged revisions but really, I prefer it for all articles that currently require protection. Grika Ⓣ 15:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support, yes pleaseeeeeeeee.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 18:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support Allow IPs to edit, but must create an account to flag. Can established editors get an auto-auto-flag? (to automatically self-flag) KevinCuddeback (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
151. Strong Support This option just makes sense. We shouldn't make it as easy as we do for trolls to mess with people through WP. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support. I like this idea too. Kaldari (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
153. Strong Support I've wondered why this wasn't the case for years. Changes to potenially libelous articles quite simply need to be approved by a "reliable" editor. Semi-protection stops a little, but not too much (see the GWB wars) -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support, although I worry that small articles will be left out or left old cojoco (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
155. Strong Support - First choice, way overdue on WP, highly support. --
     Backin72 (n.b.) 05:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
156. Week Support I don't think American libel laws should be used to justify this. Implementing flagging on ALL BLP's would likely do more harm then good. Conditional flagging for more popular articles/people and ones who's had issues with libel before. Do NOT think this would work for ALL BLP's. Raeky (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support - this would probably be my first choice here. Terraxos (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support - I would definitely choose this over semi-protecting all BLPs. I say that the most notable ones should be semi-protected, but protecting all of the articles would restrict good-faith edits, which there are much more of than vandalism.--Interchange88 13:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support - For all articles would be better, but this is still vastly preferable to semi-protection, as Gerard says. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support - I support flagged revisions but for BLPs only. I think it's a great idea compared to semiprotection, because semiprotection blocks good IP editors while still allowing registered accounts that vandalize and/or have an agenda. Flagged revisions allow for greater control over BLP content from registered and anonymous alike, which is what we really want. I don't like the idea of every article having it (seems like it would be unnecessary busywork to oversee every single edit) but with the sensitivity of BLPs and the potential damage to both Wikipedia and article subjects it is a welcome change. -- Atama^chat 00:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support - absolutely essential. Sometimes you need to evolve and not refuse a much needed feature just because it isn't the way we have done things in the past. --B (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support I opposed flagged revisions Wikipedia-wide, if only because such a drastic change needs to be tested on a smaller group of articles. BLPs are the best way to test them, and I'm leaning towards supporting them for BLPs only.
     96 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]

     Actually, Blueboy, you opposed enabling flaggedRevs for any purpose whatsoever, including for any trials such as BLP-only. If that was not your intention, please change your vote on the FlaggedRevs page.

     PaddyLeahy (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

     ]

163. Strong support.
     PaddyLeahy (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
164. Support: Will not stop everything, but is a positive step. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
165. For all the prior dealings with BLP, it's a must. Secret ^account 13:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support It's at least worth a try. You can't argue against something if you've never tried it. Hazelorb (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support as experiment There is a big split on en over flagged revisions. Implementing the concept for BLPs seems like a good way to try them out. I'd like to seem some metrics set up first and a time period after which we reevaluate. Another option would be to try the concept on, say, half the BLPs, chosen randomly. --agr (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support - I am fine with either this or semi-protection. Flagging may well be the better option. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
169. VERY Weak support, and I will rush down to the OPPOSE column at the slightest hint of expanding FlaggedRevisions beyond BLPs. IMO this is a great alternative to the long stretches of semi-protection that a lot of BLPs (
     OnBrains 08:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
170. Support - an even better approach than semi-protection. R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support MikeHobday (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support - Better than semi-protection, better than leaving biographies as vulnerable as they are today. With flagged revisions, anyone can still edit an article - but their changes won't necessarily be visible until the edit has been reviewed by (presumably) one of thousands of editors who has review power. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
173. Support I used to be quite an active patroller, and I think I know how much flagged revisions would be helpful to those currently invested with the task. Emc2 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support: Much better than idea than semi-protection. Our principle is open editing; it should be obvious by now that editing is more than "type text and it shows up on a page." Collaborative verification is also needed, and anything that supports a collaborative verification process should be tried. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support - I voted 'oppose' against semi-protecting BLPs which would bring the responsibility of counter vandalism all that much more critical to ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia. Mkdw^talk 20:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
176. Support - Keeps with the spirit of "Anyone can edit" (unlike semi-protection) and should do the job of preventing falsehoods and libel.
     Talk • Work 16:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
177. Support best compromise between the options Cool110110 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
178. Support As long as it is just a trial version I will support it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support - let's give it a go. It might work; if it is clunky, we can look at ways to alter the process, or even remove it. Warofdreams talk 00:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support - depending on sighting proposals - if given too widely would not change the present system much as after 10 edits we would be back to square one, if given to harshly would be detrimental as IMO too many edits would back up --Chaosdruid (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support To prevent short period vandalism,, we have to always flag the best version from time to time,, but maybe give a notice that this isn't the most recent version Koraiem (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
182. Very conditional support Only if it proves workable in trials. If this leads to months-long backlogs, it's not worth it--we don't need to destroy wikipedia in order to save it. Wkdewey (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
183. Support - This is the perfect place to trial Flagged Revisions and in my opinion BLP's require special protection and should be treated differently that all other articles. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
184. Support 1st choice. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
185. Mild support. I'd prefer a smaller trial first, but I think this would be worth trying if we decide against a smaller preliminary test. -- Avenue (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
186. Support – This would keep vandalism from showing up on BLPs while still allowing anyone to edit them. This solution looks like a win-win. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
187. Mild support, seems a kind of the golden mean. Only the articles prone to persistent disruptive editing or vandalism should be semi-protected in my opinion. Brandспойт 21:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
188. Support, step in the right direction. --Brownsteve (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
189. Mild support. I can see where the idea's coming from, but it's not without its problems. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 10:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
190. Support, simply because it's better than encouraging vandals to make a million usernames. The Jade Knight (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
191. Support, and more strongly than semi-protection; but support is conditioned on this policy only extending to BLPs and perhaps extraordinarily controversial topics with a track record of regular abusive editing.Katana0182 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
192. Support, it would give editors a chance to debate changes and put more effort into supplying sources before changes go live.—Ashleyvh (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
193. Support, I think this would be more effort than semi-protection, for much the same results, but if that doesn't pass (as it looks it won't), this is the next best option. Anaxial (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
194. Support - did flagged revisions break the ethics behind the German Wikipedia? No. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
195. Support - Could we have a system whereby pages that get vandelised are added to a lsit of flagged revisions? That way pages that are regularly vandalised could be protected without closing wikipedia or creating a massive backlog of approvals. Noosentaal^(talk) 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
196. Support - Would still allow for editing by all users while at the same time keeping most of the vandalism out of the default public view. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
197. Support - worth trialling as others have said. Donama (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
198. Support - Could potentionally fix many of the problems that currently exist. -LK (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
199. Support BUT flagging should be trialled on a handful of high-profile pages first, just to ensure we have the templates etc we need, and later extended until it covers all BLPs. ciphergoth (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
200. Support. -- Vision Thing -- 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)p[reply]