Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey/Implement Flagged Revisions for all articles (FR-all) / content pages

Support (FR-all)

Supports (FR-all) 1–

1. This would include templates, images, categories, and anything else that might somehow be part of the dependency tree of any article or portal page, etc. — CharlotteWebb 20:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. An important move to make in making this an encyclopedia. Has worked well on de:wp - David Gerard (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I would support but doubt consensus would be reached without first seeing it implemented in some articles such as BLPs. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. If it were possibly to do this and get it through, it would be a good thing, but not on Wikipedia space, please (at least at first).
   T) 20:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. This is where we need to get. Maybe this isn't the first step, but this is the destination, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm prepared to be persuaded, but I'm going to have to see how this functions in the wild first. Let's start with problematic BLPs and see how it goes. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Third. I do not know how readily it could be implemented with the large number of minor edits on non-controversial topics. Perhaps the limit should not be on the "topic" but on the activity therein -- if an article gets more than (say) ten edits a day that it goes into "flagged" status? Collect (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. To move the emphasis to the quality of all content. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Moreschi (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   bibliomaniac15 22:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. Prefer this, though I support implementing flaggedrevs in pretty much any way. Mr.Z-man 00:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support; this will allow stability without sacrificing the ability to edit as semi protection schemes necessarily must; it will also greatly reduce the number of times we have to protect at all. — Coren ^(talk) 00:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Yes. It has worked well on .de and on the English wikinews as well as a variety of other projects. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Third choice, weakly, we don't have the manpower to implement this idea, but if it will help the BLP issue, we must adapt. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Essentially to get rid of vandalism, libel, most blp issues, etc. Not too soon though, I am afraid that we might rush things and ultimately screw up. But only with an expiration system to prevent inevitable backlogs. Cenarium (Talk) 04:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indent, as explained, I prefer the option to #Implement Flagged Revisions for blps and Flagged revisions with expiration for all non-blp articles / content pages. Cenarium (Talk) 14:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14. Support Possibly with a different implementation for BLP vs non-BLP articles, but we can discuss that later. --Tango (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. First choice. Peacock (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support

    iff the implementation is not sighted-revision-viewed-by-default, for all users and all pages. While I think that flagging revisions is probably a good idea, making sighted revisions what's visible by default effectively denies editing to those without the ability to sight edits. Even if we could handle the backlog of unsighted revisions (our ability to do so is dubious), the disincentive to editing for anonymous users would definitely be a bad thing. It's been shown by academic studies that anonymous and infrequent users contribute a significant amount of our content, and I think that sighted-by-default FlaggedRevs project-wide would disrupt that positive influence. For all that it would effectively destroy vandalism, we could do that any number of ways which would be obviously unacceptable by our foundation principles, and I think that this is one of those ways.

    That being said, I do think that FlaggedRevs has potential, for BLPs and elsewhere. Showing, to some extent, what's been reviewed and what could be vandalism—that is, the status of being sighted or not—would be a good step in the direction of visible quality without sacrificing the ability of most people to effectively edit. I find that being able to selectively, but not systematically enable sighted-by-default for particular pages liable to much vandalism or libel might be worthwhile, as a different form of protection which could be applied to articles, such as BLPs, for example, as an alternative to semi-protection. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Please do not advocate this— Without 'by default' flagging is little different than the ill-fated page patrolling feature which no one put enough effort into using simply because it didn't do anything except update a little note about each revision. Some people argue that flagging will be a massive failure because no one will update the flags, but that prophecy becomes potentially self-fulfilling when its used to argue that flagging should be castrated to non-default viewing. In terms of mitigating harm a link to some "blessed" version is little different than the availability of the history tab.

    With the right configuration flagging can be setup so that the new-editor would be largely unaware that his edit is only visible to himself, other editors, and people who have chosen to see the latest draft: He edits, he sees his edit and continues to see his edit every time he visits the site unless it is reverted, based on the existence of an editing cookie. The whole flagging and visibility to millions of people vs visibility to thousands of Wikipedia editors would then just be sausage making details that most new users would be completely unaware of… With that in mind your whole causal chain falls apart. In fact, life would be much easier on the new editor since we wouldn't need to be as overagressive with vandalism patrol. I edit logged out a lot and have too frequently found that my perfectly good edit is reverted seconds later by a fly-by "vandal fighter" with little hope of recovery unless I redo it. So, in fact your doomsday situation where new users are effectively unable to edit happens already to anons and careful use of revision flagging can actually be a way to escape that problem. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. I differ on the point that "a link to some "blessed" version is little different than the availability of the history tab". Unless a vandal leaves an obscene, descriptive, or automatic edit summary (and it is my experience that vandals don't generally bother with edit summaries), it requires active work for the average reader to discern quality revisions with only the page history. I think that 'a link to some "blessed" version' is precisely what would help many users easily avoid vandalism and other nonsense. We can get that without making any restrictions on dynamic updates, so I think that's what we should do.
    2. Transparency in the editing process is important, and we need to be transparent about how things work and what editing is going on. I think that it would be a big problem if we have to make a big distinction between "thousands of Wikipedia editors" and "millions of [readers]". I don't think it would be healthy to cement or expand any gap between readers and our preexisting editors. Besides, technical fake-outs to show the newbie editor the draft (as you seem to suggest would work well) will fail at some point: if Anonymous user A refers a good faith correction to a friend and the friend can't see it, how long is it until he complains that his edits aren't showing up?
    3. Can you please provide examples of areas where you, or another editor, have had their edits reverted solely on the basis of their being made by an anonymous user? Even assuming that there are several valid examples, how could we acknowledge that random anon-reverting is a problem while condoning a more effective measure to prevent their effective participation? Certainly the answer here would be to address any problem with arbitrarily reverting anons, rather than introduce a more serious barrier to entry.

    I think that the above points are valid concerns. At the very least, please consider that it is a valid opinion—I think that non-default flagging is a good thing, and I am free to advocate my opinion, within reason. Besides, I do not advocate a hard limit: one of the things that I say is "not default" (emphasis added), and it might just be possible to recognize that my position is not black and white on the issue… all this ignoring the point that this is explicitly a "feeler survey" on which our opinions are being asked. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 21:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17. I think the common wisdom about BLPs is wrong: BLPs are not subject to greatly increased risk of total harm —rather, BLPs are subject to greatly increased risk of complaint about harm. In other words: BLPs are more sensitive indicators of our overall performance than other types of articles, but by themselves are probably only somewhat more risky than average. In a great many non-BLP articles there is a risk of vandalism causing extreme harm: consider a statistics article vandalized in an unfortunate way at an unfortunate time which results in an engineer miscalculating the safety of his design. In that case there is no singular obviously wronged person to notice and complain that his article is incorrect—so we may not feel the pain of the vandalism but a great many people may be harmed. Moreover, the impact of significant harm caused by problems in BLP articles is generally limited to a few people (the subject and his close associates), while errors in other areas can impact more people. I've witnessed firsthand an error from Wikipedia making its way into a software design document. While not itself a safety-impacting error, it was enough to make me sure that safety-impacting errors do occur. Even to those of us who care only or mostly about BLPs, flagging only BLP articles is clearly insufficient to protect the subjects: if a vandal changes Bomis to call it a child porn site, the actual harm to Jimmy would be just about equal to the harm caused by the same claim placed directly in the article on Jimmy himself. I think it's unfortunate that we continue to special-case BLPs, since when we do that we're killing our best indicator of potential harm throughout the project while only making a fairly limited improvement. All that said, if people wanted to flag only BLPs as a testing point, I wouldn't oppose it, since we do need to start learning about the impacts of flagging. I do oppose flagging+semi at this time, but only because I think we should make one change at a time in order to measure the results. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're wrong about potential harm. When people want to know about Jimmy Wales (or any individual), they do not type "Bomis" into a search engine. They type the person's name. If there's something harmful in their biography, it is much, much more likely to reach the eyes of people curious about that person, thereby causing harm. That said, thank you very much for not being opposed to BLP flagged revisions as an experiment. Cool Hand Luke 01:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And yet… the Bomis article still gets more traffic than most of our BLPs. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    At ~300 hits per day, it gets more traffic than most of our non-BLPs too. I'm not sure which way that cuts; low hits also lengthen the period of time that errors might persist. Jimbo has many more hits than Bomis in this case, but I'm more interested in the mechanism of serving articles than the hits.

    When someone wants to know about an individual, they type the name of that individual, and google retrieves their Wikipedia biography because of the page name and the inlinks. So sure, Nike, Inc. gets much more traffic that CEO Mark Parker, but when one searches for "Mark Parker," only the biography comes up, not the company. Every BLP is a high-ranking magnet for potential defamation on particular individuals. It's not that there's no potential for harm from non-BLPs (there certainly is), its that BLP articles are a good place to start—to test whether or not we can handle flagged revisions. Cool Hand Luke 19:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18. I think this is our destination, and editors are certainly free to focus on BLPs if they wish. I would. Cool Hand Luke 19:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Flagged revisions have far more upsides than downsides - the upsides are practical and ethical, the downsides are philosophical or extremely hypothetical.--Tznkai (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. I don't see any practical downsides to this. The German Wikipedia seems to manage just fine, and I don't see why we wouldn't do just as well. Pfainuk talk 00:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. This is definitely the way forward for en Wikipedia.
    talk) 16:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. Absolutely. Reduces the reward for vandals, provides higher-quality content, still leaves editing open to all comers. What's not to like? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Anything that would improve Wikipedia's credibility is to be welcomed 21:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC) <-- This is User:George The Dragon.
24. Everyking (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. I support doing this and/or semi-protection for all articles. I've seen firt-time IP users do things like change a birthdate by one year. I can't check out everything like that. Bubba73 (talk), 22:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. A very attractive idea. I'd like to see how it unfolds once actually put into use. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 23:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose upon further thought. Reasons below. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 23:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Another fine, workable idea. The departure from the ideals of infant Wikipedia is more than made up for by the usefulness in building an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. en.Wikipedia needs to move beyond mere content creation and (hopefully) become a more reliable source. The flagged revision tool has worked well elsewhere. I welcome anything that would significantly reduce blatant vandalism on this project. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support I don't trust any number in a Wikipedia article because I've seen how long it takes for editors to catch crafty vandalism and how lenient administrators are in dealing with the repeat offenders. Flagged revisions may also rain on the parade of bored middle-schoolers who vandalize articles to show off to their classmates who are in the same room using Wikipedia to look something up. Switzpaw (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support though not in the immediate future. We do have to test how well this works and we also need to avoid the over-optimistic idea that this will be a cure against unreliable info. Nobody flags the flaggers and the system will have to deal with incompetent flagging and malicious flagging, just as we now have to handle incompetent editing and malicious editing. This is not a cure-all. I tend to agree with Charlotte that a priori scope restrictions are counter-productive but if individual editors are the ones deciding whether flagged-revs are used in a given article, we'll be in a better position to benefit from flagged-revs without getting buried under the backlog. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Let's start with BLPs first, though. Priyanath ^talk 23:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Works well on dewiki and makes the life of anonymous vandals incredibly boring. Administrative overhead is neglectible, good edits can be sighted with a single click (the effort for reverting is the same as before). This will greatly reduce the need to semi-protect articles, enabling constructive contributions by IPs. --Latebird (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Very broadly speaking, the harm caused by Wikipedia outweighs the good at present, and that's not going to change until some kind of responsible editorial process happens (if you disagree, I'd be happy to convince you otherwise). Giving instant access for anyone on the planet to authoritatively print whatever they like and present it as truth is beyond stupid. With some pages getting hundreds of thousands of hits every day, even the fatest reverts will have dozens of misled readers. The only question is whether the project can handle it yet - trying it on BLP will be a good test. Phil153 (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support I think flagged revisions should eventually be extended to all articles (or at least all established articles), but start with BLPs, protected pages, templates and images, then featured articles, good articles, etc. Maybe there could be different options for flagged revisions – so that on some articles they would expire and have to be renewed, and on others they would not.Snigbrook 14:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Although if Wikibooks is anything to go by, nothing much will ever get reviewed. Maybe that's because it's quieter over there.
    ^TalkQu 22:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
36. Support, although I'd like to see a phased rollout to BLPs first - Alison ^❤ 14:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - Not sure this will make it through immediately, but I think the project has reached a point that we need this sort of change. It's working well on a sister project. It's worth a shot here.
    vecia 03:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
38. Support per the Fat Man's failed 2009 ArbCom campaign platform. Flagged revisions would make editing the wiki less fun, less immediately gratifying--but that's sort of the point. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground (my talk page excepted, of course).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support It will only improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia and further it is being used in a sister Project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Weak Support I do not see why this measure should not be supported. Extending flagged revisions is a logical step. However I think the alternative measure of 'with expirations' may be a better bet at first as established editors may not like change or may be skeptical. That way once people have become accustomed to flagged revisions the expirations could be dropped completely or revised as needed depending on user experience.
    talk • contribs) 12:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
41. Support Robin klein (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
42. Support after trial on BLPs. Misarxist 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. If Wikipedia ever wants to have any serious degree of legitimacy, this is necessary. Cla68 (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Comment. I hate voting, so I'm glad this isn't a vote. Flagged revisions (depending somewhat on method of implementation) have the additional advantage of reducing certain types of conflict by removing deceptive immediacy. FR = greater happiness, efficiency and reliability. However, protocols for establishing flags may need much refining; I think a longish a limited scope test period may prove to be a very wise provision. Finally, a period of learning something new together could be a very healthy thing for the community. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Strong support This is long overdue, and I haven't changed my view as I expressed it at Wikimania-Boston that we should go much further into an article rating system. Eclecticology (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support as a general goal, though I think we're a ways from where this is a viable immediate proposal.
    talk) 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
47. Support in general, although we do need a trial first.-gadfium 19:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. As I said above, I approve the implementation of flagged revisions for all articles but not for the purposes of avoiding BLP issues. I think we should be heading in the direction of approved articles. Obviously not all subjects will support an FA, but we should, as a community, be looking to promote accurate, verifiable and grammatically correct revisions to our readers rather than continual works in progress. Rje (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Perhaps not all at once, but yes, that should be the goal. Prodego ^talk 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support After a trial period of employing Flagged revisions for articles that currently require semi-protection.
51. Support. Good idea, but I like having a trial period first. Kaldari (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Trial first - which will probably illuminate some problems at the less trafficked parts of the site, but lets get this show on the road already.--Tznkai (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Flip the switch and turn it on. Chris Croy (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support I like this even better than just giving it for BLP's, but this is still only my second choice, I like the one with expiry for non-BLP's better, as a safeguard against lacunae. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support, best of the choices, really, as it's also the most straightforward and, in a way, the fairest. Same rationale as given by me above. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. It is just asinine that we still have to undo vandalism ALL THE time. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to fight vandalism. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Dovi (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Strong Support. - beef up the numbers of those who can approve if it gets too slow. Bluekieran (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support I think it will stop most vandals as they will not have the satisfaction of seeing their vandalism. The criteria for who can approve and the rules for approving should be not be complex so that most users are approvers and any edit that add value to a page get approved with a resonable time. Iccaldwell (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. I support any aggressive measure that would bring the much missing respect to the Wikipedia content. In fact, I would go even further and ask a) editors to use real names only, b) complete abandonment of anonymous editing, c) a universal article grading system. Wiki must finally become an encyclopedia. --Dipa1965 (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support as ultimate goal, although might have to be phased in as a practical matter. Are we here to write a respected encyclopedia or to engage in a grand social experiment? Anyone will still be able to edit, but not anyone will be able to publish. There is a difference. (Permanent semi-protection - that is, no IP editing - might be enough to handle the problem, however.) Tvoz/talk 05:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. It's problematic that as soon as a topic comes to public attention (the Wikipedia entry is specifically mentioned in the media, for example) it is least reliable because it is likely to be the subject of vandalism. Some degree of "inertia" would improve credibility greatly. Rvcx (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support after it's been switched on for BLPs for a while and we're confident we can cope with it. As long as all edits are reviewed promptly, I struggle to see any downsides. --Tango (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (FR-all)

Opposes (FR-all) 1–100

1. Strong oppose, ludicrous idea that would be unworkable and make wikipedia the website not to edit. Thanks,
   SqueakBox 23:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Flagged revisions do not restrict the ability to edit the page. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose: It would make us more reliable, at the cost of being less informative. We'd get massive backlogs, which no-one will want to tackle. Because of these massive backlogs, newbies will complain that their edits aren't being processed and then leave us. Then we have even less editors to handle the growing backlog. Rinse, lather and repeat. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 00:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for that, a cogent explanation of the problem this would cause. Thanks,

   SqueakBox 00:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Except that it's hand-waving speculation which is unsupported by the experiences of other projects who have enabled flagged revisions. I expect there is consensus that those outcomes would be bad and would justify further changes to the configuration. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Crazy strong oppose Yeah, lets increase the existing backlog by a factor of 12. I'm not sure how many articles we miss at NPP, but I'd estimate 150/day, at least, translating to 4500/month. At least those articles are still allowed through. I shudder to think of the backlogs that have to be gone through before edits from, say two months ago are let through. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose without some kind of trial first. This could either be a small-number-of-pages trial, or a "flag but show most recent version" type test as I proposed elsewhere on this page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   ...and does absolutely nothing to help the BLP issue. Many readers don't even notice the edit tabs, why would they notice a "prior flagged revision available" note? Why would anyone even care to flag such articles? What is the purpose, exactly? Cool Hand Luke 01:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Templates Only, see above for BLP thoughts--Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Assuming you mean that you oppose in all cases outside of Template: namespace, I'd like to point out that one of the main things that caused me to develop an interest in the editing process was tinkering with templates early on. I'd be just as hesitant to lock down template space any more than it already is - and it is already far too locked down - since when did getting included in some semi-unofficial javascript tool automatically qualify a template as "heavily used," and why on earth does that automatically warrant more than a semi-protect? Getting a touch off topic, I suppose, but would like to reiterate that much the same issues exist with discouraging new contributions when dealing with template namespace as anywhere else.

   talk 15:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

6. Oppose for now, see how it works on BLPs first. About 1 in 8 articles is a BLP, and a BLP is edited about once every 5 seconds. 156,430 users have made at least one edit in the last 30 days. Even if you made all of them 'reviewers', is that enough people to 'sight' all 2,665,657 articles? --Pixelface (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose, for the same reason as the opposition to flagged BLP revisions: the idea of flagging is (in the end) truly impractical, as several editors before me have already explained. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 21:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Lor no; see my opposition to flagging BLP's above. Flagged revisions are too much stick and too little carrot. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. ABSOLUTELY NOT. Yeah I used caps. I really do think this would be a very bad idea, for many reasons, most of which have been said again and again. Wizardman 04:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong Oppose - the backlogs would probably explode... VX!^~~~ 05:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Uhhh How many permutations are there going to be? I guess I'll note here that I'm opposed to implementing flagged revisions elsewhere but my rationale is at one of the various "Whatever it is, I'm against it" sections above. This is confusing. Protonk (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose Disaster waiting to happen. Let's not go there. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose this will prevent huge numbers of constructive editors from contributing and is directly opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 10:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. oppposeWe simply don't have the rescources.Geni 13:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose until a trial has been run and there's evidence we actually have the resources to handle it. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong Oppose - Would the site still be wikipedia after such a monumental change? I mean last I checked the front page said: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --ScWizard (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose Quite apart from the merits, I don't think we're well enough organized to do this--unlike some other wps. We would need to try a subset first. I may be wrong, but we need to find out before we go ahead with something this drastic. DGG (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support or oppose depending on what exactly is meant. See my comment in the support section above. To summarize: I think FlaggedRevs is a good thing, but making sighted revisions what's visible by default is a bad thing (and this opinion is not self-contradictory! :) ). I suspect that many oppose FlaggedRevs primarily because of the idea that sighted revisions will be visible by default. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose: As I opposed the trial proposal for flagged revisions. The backlogs would likely be unmanagable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose Something needs to be done about BLPs and this effort is only a partial solution but implementing this across all articles is against the spirit of Wikipedia. We manage vandalism very well I think so this is overkill. Also, as others have stated we don't have the manpower for this and it would consume the time needed to address other serious problems such as POV pushing that this does not solve.
    talk) 09:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
21. I do not have sufficient obscenities in my vocabulary to express how strongly I oppose this suggestion, and I take pride in my vocabulary. DS (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. DS above pretty much sums up my sentiments. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. J.delanoy above, sums it up for me. Synergy 19:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Goodness no.
    talk) 10:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
25. Oppose I think it would be simpler to semiprotect all articles, which is in effect what is being done from the casual ip editors point of view ("your edit won't appear until one of us checks it", really takes away from the instant gratification) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose. This would require us to manually approve each and every edit. RC patrol is loaded enough dealing with the bad edits. Forcing them to take action on good edits will triple their workload at least. Flagged revisions are a good idea on a few articles, but it is a bad idea for universal implementation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose Premature without a trial. --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If people are opposed to the idea of flagged revisions, as you're indicating you are, there won't be a trial. WilyD 13:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

28. Strong Oppose - A trial with BLPs, yes, this? No.sinneed (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose I cannot think of something more absurd to import from de-wiki. I am a "sighter" there, I could run around flagging stuff as "flagged" and I could surely mark vandalism as such if I were a determined vandal and people would probably be tricked by it. SoWhy 21:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Per my above reasoning that this is an encyclopaedia which anyone should be able to edit. Also per NuclearWarfare that this would increase the backlog further. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose flagged revisions in general. Other projects like
    T/C) 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Oppose. An even more terrible idea than flagging all BLPs. Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. I oppose flaggedrevs period. -- penubag  (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. STRONG oppose. All users should see the latest version of all pages. Anything else is not acceptable for a site like this. And do we really want a "decide what people get to see" cabal? I sure hope not. Bushytails (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose A flawed technical approach to increasing veracity and combating vandalism. Contrary to the open spirit of a wiki that has made our encyclopedia a success. Steven Walling (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. It would destroy everything Wikipedia stands for!
    chat) 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
37. Oppose: This will just decrease the quality of the project, moves away from the purpose of a Wiki, create a bunch of new work, and increase accusations of
    WP:CABALism
    .
38. We have bots and vandalfighters to check for vandalism, right?
    miranda 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Oppose. Too much work, too little benefit, large backlogs, and easily abused or misused in my opinion. I do not think that such measures should be put into use unless things get drastically worse. Malinaccier (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose This would suck the life/fun right out of WP. I don't consider the German test to be a success. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Unconditionally oppose flagged revisions for any and all articles as antiethical to our belief that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppose in the strongest possible way. As I said above, one of the joys of Wikipedia is watching the article form online right before you. Otherwise you end up with a nasty class system. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose Would make Wikipedia something like Encyclopedia Britannica. --
    Be Bold! 05:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. Oppose. An important part of the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is seeing the impact of your edits immediately. I do not yet see the necessity of this on non-BLP articles and only support the BLP flags on a trial basis. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oppose , the side effects of this measure to handle 15% of the IP edits are to big and shouldn't be an argument for bureaucracy creep, i think Risker is right, the people helping out on vadalism patrol do this mostly out of understanding about this problem, the sighter group is against the spirit of wikipedia and as a result many editors will go elswere. Mion (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Oppose; This totally contravenes Wikipedia's philosophy. We are not Citizendium, and for good reason. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose until we've worked the kinks out.--
    the Orphanage 07:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
48. Oppose strongly, I might add. This would create far too much bureucracy. Also part of Wikipedia's charm is that the edits you make become instantly visible. This would take that away. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 12:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Oppose will discourage new editors and contributions. Experimenting the same idea for BLP is acceptable.
    What up? 15:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
50. Oppose. Having just dabbled with a featured article where I found bias and outright misrepresentation of sources, I think this a very bad idea. It will just allow entrenched editors to promote their POV better. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Opposes. Should be tried in a small scale first. I support testing the flagged revisions feature with a small subset of articles, but I think BLP is not the right subset because 1) it is too large; 2) it would add to the hoopla about BLP with which I don't agree. --Itub (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose. Are you kidding me? 6,816,128 articles? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Oppose Considering our unpatrolled backlog of new pages currently stretch back to November 28. I don't belieeve we can handle the backlog for Flagged Revisions in a reasonably timely manner at all. --PeaceNT (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Not just yet. I hope I'll have a different opinion when we have a test case, and BLPs are definitely the place to start. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose, for the same reason as the opposition to flagged BLP revisions, the idea is (in the end) impractical, as already explained by several editors before me. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 21:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose, for same reason as opposing BLPs. Also, you would have problems on a user's subjective review of articles, images, templates, contents, etc. Let us remember it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If we start making ourselves more exclusive, then it will make recruiting new users more difficult. Chris (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Oppose, never liked the idea. It will be horribly backlogged. It is triple work for marginal benefit. Renata (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose, adding flagged revisions would add in an editorial review process, and this would both limit, and slow the editing process. -- クラウド６６８ 09:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Oppose, would create a heavier workload for reviewing editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose per my rationale above (greater workload, less openness, less article improvement). A much smaller scale test would be ok (smaller than BLP). -kotra (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Oppose per my rationale above (just below Kotra's in the same location). A better model would be to have a stable site which extracts Wikipedia diffs, rather than limit Wikipedia itself. Orderinchaos 22:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That reminds me of Veropedia. Similar idea, though it's owned by someone else (and has ads). -kotra (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

62. Strong oppose - Would cause far more work than its worth and goes against the whole instantaneous aspect of Web 2.0. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Strong oppose - Raising the technical difficulty involved in newbs editing these articles and acknowledging the threat of this sort of action being taken on any rarely-edited and rarely-reviewed article makes this an easy issue to dismiss out of hand. Even given some potential effective solution to those problems, I continue to strongly oppose this proposal on the simple basis that any active disinsentive to edit an article without the specific and easily identifiable issues that currently lead to protection and similar measures will result in fewer new active editors and a general loss of new information and quality. I'm shocked and dismayed that this effort to partially close off the wiki even came to a poll.
    talk 11:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
64. Strong oppose Seeing the results of your edits is perhaps Wikipedia's biggest draw. It is enormously empowering, and it is the direct reason I'm here today.
    CapnZapp (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
65. Strong oppose - There is little, if any benefit. The last thing we need is another backlog. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Oppose per King of Hearts. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Strong OpposeThis seems like a workaholics solution.--omnipotence407 (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Oppose. I'm not really sure about it, even for BLPs. Funny how apparently noone mentioned anything about trust metric, which is not so obtrusive, yet can be even more powerful. GregorB (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Strongest Oppose - Requiring every edit to be approved before it's visible is a) twice as much editor work, b) antithetical to the idea that "anyone can edit". --
    talk) 17:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
70. Strong Oppose Way too much work. Editors have better things to do than review every last IP edit before it goes live. Royalbroil 03:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Very Strong Oppose. per
    CapnZapp. Jonathan321 (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
72. Oppose. I have had now some experience with flagged revisions on Polish Wikipedia, and I am not impressed. It seems to me too many flagged revisions are given almost by accident, when editors have not fully reviewed an article, but simply want to flag their own latest version. I want to see a scientific study of revision mechanism from German and other Wikipedias before we start tweaking our system, which works quite well. Instead we should try to emphasize what works - GAs, WikiProject B and A class reviews and FAs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Strongly oppose drastic and ill-considered change of policy. I have (essentially) attempted to control the incursion of POV and unsourced information into an article on a prominent (non-living) person for some years, and I would not say that I know the subject well enough to warrant it now. (Comment: those who think they can accomplish this would do better to pick a BLP to watch.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Oppose. Many valid reasons expressed above. I'm wary of this being used for BLPs alone, but for the entire English Wiki, not a good idea. —
    Hello! 19:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
75. I have to oppose this because I don't know what I'd be supporting. So many supportive posts say I support under the condition that ___ or only if it's limited to ___. Flagging might have potential, but I can't agree to it until there's consensus on the specifics. I'd rather see no action than a convoluted, multiple-rule system.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Oppose Seems overly complicated a solution and potentially deprives the site of good information being added. Would also be confusing to newcomers who wouldn't see their edit as they might expect. --Resplendent (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Oppose GreyWyvern (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. 'Firmly oppose since anyone can edit. This would severely discourage editting at all. Plus require a huge amount of time to ID and approve flags and edits. Babakathy (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Oppose, without at least a test on a smaller set of articles first. We may find that it would be too much work to flag all revisions. On the other hand, if a test on a smaller number of articles is successful then this is an option GDonato (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Strong oppose. Absolutely not. Again, this defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. We have fast updates at breakneck speed, and vandalism to high-profile articles is reverted pretty quickly anyway. I know this would improve our accuracy, but there are about 2.5 articles and a million more content pages. This would get way too messy. We'll never be able to keep track of it all. Flagged revisions for BLPs is a marginally good idea, this is not. ~
    U) 17:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
81. Immensely Strong Oppose, as per myself, here (56), only this time, hundredfold. Ngorongoro (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Opposed. This seems counter to the projects purposes.
    -- Banjeboi 01:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
83. Opposed. Might as well ban IPs from editing altogether. This proposal seems to go against the project's aims to be open to all, when the vast majority of articles are at no risk whatsoever from IP vandals. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Strongly opposed per a lot of good reasons stated above, both on philosophical and technical basis. —Mirlen^Talk 20:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. No thanks, this goes against the principles that made this a great webpage. Also, if it doesn't discourage edits, we need many more reviewers. Kusma (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. Opposed. Flagged revisions should be for vandalism-prone articles or articles where vandalism could have serious consequences. In any case, let's try with a small subset first.
    talk) 12:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
87. Strong Oppose. Flagged Revision is the worst change that Wikipedia could make. Just because someone is an administrator or a rollbacker doesn't mean that that someone should get the special privilege of reviewing other editors' work in this manner. It goes against the fundamental Wikipedia principle of "anyone can edit" and it discourages productive, constructive editing by established users without rollback privileges or admin status, not to mention constructive editing by IP users. We do not want to move Wikipedia in this direction. The best solution to dealing with vandalism on all articles is to vigorously patrol for vandalism and to semi-protect articles when need is demonstrated. A terrible, ludicrous idea overall. Ohconfucius is right, we might as well ban IP editors altogether (which is another terrible, ludicrous idea given the entire concept of Wikipedia) if we're going to implement Flagged Revision. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Strongly Oppose Mike92591 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Procedural oppose. This is the wrong place to discuss this. Flagged revisions need to be tried out before we can contemplate whether the tool should be deployed, and if so, how. Geometry guy 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Strong Oppose - One word: Backlog. Although I admit, I'm curious to know how on earth this got enough support on the German WP for implementation.Corvus coronoides _talk 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Oppose. English wikipedia is already overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of subpar articles, and "protecting" this mess diverts resources from improving. There's only a limited pool of resources to do all the jobs. Another administrative burden (of unknown, but non-zero weight) will hardly relieve vandalism - Mr. Hagger has no problems registering dozens of new user accounts every week - but will simply take time.
    NVO (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
92. Strong oppose - this would be totally against the principle of openness that Wikipedia is built on. –neurovelho 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. OPPOSE - Every time I add a Interwiki link to German language biographies of painters who've been dead for more than 400 years (like /
    derm 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
94. Oppose - too much diversion of resources. It is using a club when tweezers should do the job. --Bejnar (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. opposed. Very bad idea. --
    dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 11:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
96. Total oppose. I wonder for how long will they try to sneak this in. This is already the third straw poll about flagged revisions, so
    WP:DEADHORSE comes to my mind. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
97. OPPOSE This would kill Wikipedia as we ever knew it. Kingturtle (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. Oppose This would be bad for Wikipedia outside of BLP articles, if implemented there.--
    chitchat 23:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
99. Of course not. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. Strong oppose If flagging is implemented I will quit and I garauntee a lot of other valuable long term editors will throw in the towel as well.
     talk) 06:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]