 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
I think that the Wikipedia:Pending Changes policy/whatever is a very dangerous proposal. The reason is that it will create a top-down bureaucracy. Once a certain group of editors gets the reviewer power, however loose or stringent the requirements are, it won't just stop at blatant vandalism. Or BLP violations. Or whatever the latest restriction is. After all, it's not blatant vandalism, but who would keep obvious misinformation? Or template-wrecking formatting? What about dreadful spelling? Punctuation mistakes? It's a slippery slope that we can never stay on top of.
And not only that, but it undermines one of the most fundamental precepts of Wikipedia policy: WP:SOFIXIT. WP:BOLD. etc. Wikipedia currently maintains a culture, or tries to, in which articles are built up from lousy, skimpy, inaccurate, or just plain crap-ola beginnings. Not every change is for the better, but we can revert. What matters is that when there's something wrong, we go in and make it better. There's no way any article could ever improve unless we let the bad edits in first, and then correct them. If we stop every bad edit at the door, we'll have nothing to build on. Nothing to fix. Then what? Wikipedia will fail from lack of new content, motivation for old users, welcoming environment for new users, and a host of other things that Pending Changes would outright abolish. That's why I will steadfastly oppose any implementation of Pending Changes, no matter how loose. If someone doesn't take a stand, Pending Changes will kill Wikipedia.