Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Feedback/Archive 4

< Wikipedia:Pending changes‎ | Feedback
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Weird

My edits were not automatically accepted, but I can review and accept my own pending revisions. It is really weird that I can do that and also that my edits were not automatically accepted even though I've been on wikipedia for years. Does this ever happen to anyone here? — Martin tamb (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Some devious people like to "unaccept" revisions, which means I have to go back and re-accept my own. —mono(how's my driving?) 04:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Faster review process

I propose:

  • Show the number of pending changes on the Special:OldReviewedPages.
  • Accept / Decline button on the Special:OldReviewedPages. Often a mouseover of 'review' will show whether its vandalism.
    • Clicking one should prompt for a comment box, but not load an entire new page such as the when you click the undo button.
  • This is a larger change, but having a review feature on the history page of an article would be great with the same accept/decline feature for each individual edit.
    • Again this shouldn't load an entirely new page, but just prompt a comment box.

I'm finding that certain articles like The World Cup, make having to click one version, then another version, load the compare, accept a change a very long process and by that time numerous edits can have piled up on top of that. Just my thoughts. Mkdwtalk 23:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

World War II

On 10 July I disabled pending changes in the World War II article and moved it back to semi-protection. By my count I make this the 14th most popular article during 2009, so it attracts a lot of non-registered readers (about 20,000 a day). With pending changes turned on this was leading to significant numbers of IP editors trying to vandalise the article. These changes were, of course, rejected by reviewers but this had the effect of clogging up watchlists and making it almost impossible to track actual changes to the article. As a result, pending changes did not prove to be an improvement for this article. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realize this is a forum to discuss how pending changes overall could be improved (mostly interface wise), not about if we should use pending changes on article X, although suggestions on specific criteria would be welcome. Also, please don't forget to reset the pending changes when you do elevate the article back to semi-protection, as I have done for you here in the future, thanks. 山本一郎 (会話) 08:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
No I don't realise that at all - the introduction to this talk pages states "Please place any feedback regarding the pending changes feature in general from your personal experiences from the trial.", which is exactly what I've done. I'm reluctant to generalise from a sample size of one, but the results of the trial on the World War II article suggest that pending changes isn't well suited to very high traffic articles. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty much my conclusion. I like PC1 as an alternative to semi, but it's a royal pain if edit count picks up. I'm restored semi on a few articles that were dropped to PC1 for the trial. TFOWR 11:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
In fact, most of the posts on this page should've been made to the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Noticeboard. -- Ϫ 09:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I really can't believe that anyone gets jumped on when he refers to a specific, verifiable example, rather than writing vaguely about some Generic Article X. Varlaam (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep - I think pending changes will be far more useful on less popular articles than on more popular ones. It will give a smaller number of watchers the time needed to revert bad changes without the great majority of readers having to view the vandalism. --mav (reviews needed)

How to distinguish from "regular" changes

I think that the PC thing is a good idea, but I can't distinguish "accepted/unaccepted" changes from simple reverts. In other words, if someone unaccepts b/c of vandalism, instead of the log showing "revert", it should show "unaccept". And there ought to be a way for it to be shown as a minor change so I can filter it out if I want to. Hires an editor (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Succinct yet descriptive list of issues and suggestions

Have we come up with a succinct list of issues in a single thread without making a single thread about them? Simple one or two-sentence summaries without duplication (if someone adds a duplicate, remove and consolidate any added detail into the original). We can subcategorize these into plain bugs and usability/design suggestions. In another thread I imagine we'll eventually have a list of people who support, oppose, or are neutral on the success. Starting the list of issues, I'll list mine as well as ones I've seen here already. I'm going to try to avoid soapboxing on my own opinion of the trial (may start another thread on that) in the hope that everyone will use this thread to work on providing a non-redundant, succinctly described list of issues and suggestions. If you update a suggestion, please sign next to the other people who added/updated a suggestion. We can think about doing endorsements/opposes to these specific ideas, but I'm worried that it could clutter up the list. If you want to start an extended discussion of an issue or one already exists, please wikilink to it. II | (t - c) 07:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. Review conflict raised in this archived conversation. It is easy for two reviewers to end up reviewing the same change at the same time. This has lead to all sorts of problems such as people saying that they undid something that they did not intend to. Possibly this conflict happens if they click on Special:OldReviewedPages at a similar time and so both parties see a certain page as being unreviwed. Two possible solutions:
    1. Reduce the chance of a review conflict. Perhaps the under review tag needs to appear on the reviewing page itself... and maybe in other places such as the article history and on the actual article.
    2. Deal with a review conflict better if it does happen. If you press accept or undo on the reviewing page, it should tell you if someone else has already done that... rather than just accepting a different version or undoing the undo as it seems to at the moment. Yaris678 (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  2. Speed Pending changes seems to make pages load slower (see Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback#Too_slow). No hard data yet reported but speed loss seems significant. II | (t - c) 07:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    1. T26124. Apparently it's been fixed in MediaWiki's trunk; I don't know when we'll see this applied to en.wiki, however (or whether it'll be the improvement we're hoping for...) TFOWR 11:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  3. User Interface
    1. Ugly Highlighting I (II) don't like the highlighting - it makes the history harder to read. II | (t - c) 07:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    2. Poor naming of the SpecialPage --Cybercobra (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    3. Make it easier to find the SpecialPage --Cybercobra (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    4. Unaccept button, greyed out, gives the wrong impression. If you don't accept the change you should undo it. The greyed out button makes it look like you should press unaccept... but your can't... which confuses some reviewers. The button should be hidden when innactive.Yaris678 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  4. Review level codes I (II) would like to see flexible ways for multiple people to certify (and revoke their certification) and add specific codes to the edits indicating whether they have specifically verified the cited fact in its source, or simply confirmed that it is not vandalism. Reviewing edits should not just be another way to revert, but rather a quality control process applied to all edits. Ultimately I'd like to see other codes, but I'll direct that conversation for anyone interested to another spot to preserve succinctness. II | (t - c) 07:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    1. Clarity of purpose It's my interpretation from Wikipedia:Reviewing#Purpose_of_reviewing the the purpose of a review is simply to screen out vandalism, not a general quality control process. Gerardw (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
      That was my impression too, but from a pragmatic point of view, if you see a non-vandalistic but otherwise problematic edit, many thoughtful editors will want to address the error as well. At times I've done that by accept then edit (did that recently at Jackie Chan), but in any case, I think it could be clearer what options are open to a reviewer who sees a problematic edit that isn't vandalism. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  5. Guidelines I admit this is just a test run, but even so some idea about when to apply the pending changes options would be nice to have. I've gotten a limited number of reports from my people that some attempts to implement pending changes on milhist articles have not exactly worked due to page popularity; to be fair, I doubt that anyone took that angle into account, but as a result at least one popular page within milhist's scope (World War II) was switched back to semi-protection for greater ease of data management last I heard. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  6. Watchlist issues The other compliant I have received concerns watchlists: Nick-D (talk · contribs) noted that pending changes "...has caused problems in the World War II article - the large number of rejected changes by IP editors to that article mean that the watchlist system no longer really works for it as its possible for other edits to be made in between the IP edits." TomStar81 (Talk) 07:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  7. Misunderstanding the process For example Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes#Still_confused. Perhaps we need to think of better terminology. Certainly better documentation would help. Yaris678 (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucratic

After a couple years away from Wikipedia, I guess it's no surprise that the bureaucratic processes continue to grow in complexity. This seems a lot nicer than outright protection, and on well-patrolled pages this may indeed work out.

I find it interesting that a large project like Wikipedia maintains essentially one branch. This change is somewhat like adding a staging index for edits from anonymous or untrusted users on a case by case basis. I actually think Wikipedia would be better served with multiple branches designating multiple levels of community-assessed quality and notability. Philwelch (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Would that imply classifying 3 million articles into branches?
There are already a myriad of pending classifications which appear to hang around indefinitely.
Varlaam (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Coping with Pending changes in the future and a review button

The reviewer rights is given liberally to trusted users but not all reviewers are reviewing. If in the future, pending changes is implemented, would we be able to cope with the amount of articles needing review? Currently, pending changes is only on certain articles since it's still a test feature. If it is implemented, it'll be different.

Also, could there be a review tab where we will be able to see who is reviewing an article at Special:OldReviewedPages? BejinhanTalk 12:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's my understanding that basic pending changes controls were suggested as a replacement for semi-protection for many but not all articles that need that sort of protection, not over Wikipedia in general. It's my understanding that that's about a tenth of a percent of the articles in WP. It is possible that there'll be a workload-vs-work issue, but I think, limited to that set of articles, and perhaps with reviewer eventually rolled out to (say) a group the size of the "rollback" group, that it'll be kept in check--and potentially relieve admins of some workload as well. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

why this will never work but should

This is not just feedback on the proposed idea of "Pending changes". This is a statement of what I consider to be the greatest obstacle in making wikipedia an actual encyclopedia that is useful and accurate and not plagued with all the evils of the social internet that prevent it from acheiving its purpose. Some of this may be incoherent, some of this may be irrelevant, some of this may just be way off - it all depends on how you read it. It's just my opinion as a long-time wikipedia user and reluctant editor (reluctant because some people make the editing process downright painful) who wants to see massive, radical overhaul in the way things are done, but will be satisfied with at least a few steps in the right direction.

I'm russian, and while I don't edit the russian wikipedia, I often use it. I noticed that they had a system like this for a long time already. Every article was regularly reviewed by a committed team of editors to make sure that it was accurate and up to the standards of style and completeness, without unneccessary information or missing references, etc. This reviewed version would be marked as "stable" and afaik there may have been automatic redirection to the last stable version of a page, so overall they were already doing what is being proposed here only without arguing over how or why or for how many pages or complaing about all the unresolved issues. And that, I think, is the main difference between the way they do things and the way you do things.

Something like this pending changes system should be in place for something that claims to be an encyclopedia. The strongest - and most often true - criticism of wikipedia is that there is not enough control or stability on what goes into an article. I have not been an editor for very long (or a very active one at that) but I have been a user for very long time, and there are many things I would have changed about the way you do things around here, but none of these changes will ever really happen because the editor community is composed of people with agendas that contradict what the underlying goal of wikipedia should be (in my Holy opinion). Some people are fanatical about subject matter far too specific and trivial to merit inclusion in a general encyclopedia. Some people don't know how to recognize POV and remove important information from controversial pages because they don't understand how to present both sides of a complex issue. Some people are just idiots who like to argue. Since as wiki, WP relies on this lot of crazy, biased, wholly unqualified internetizens for all of its content, it is vital for the project to prevent editors from actually editing the pages whenever possible. That last statement may seem self-contradictory, but I want to draw as a comparison the way the governement of the US was constructed. The Founding Fathers knew that all governments fuck up in the long run. This was very clear from history and still is. That is why they intentionally set up the branches of government such that it was a very difficult and slow process to make any real changes in the way things work. All the checks and balances are there to make sure that nothing happens to destabilize the system. I strongly believe that while contributing should be a free and open process to all users (even unregistered ones), the actual editing should be a task reserved to people who are judged by the community at large to be committed, impartial, and at least somewhat knowledgeable about the topics they care for.

I don't see how a "Pending Changes" system could not be (eventually) enforced on all articles. Maybe it doesn't have to be so restrictive about who can see the most recent changes - as long as you give the user the option to see either version. At the very least, this should be enforced on all "Good Ariticles" and better. Ideally, this is should not be a way to stop vandalism but a way to make articles better. A system like this will discourage vandalism right off the bat, but the most valuable thing this could bring is more active and more useful editor participation. But at the same time, a lot of editors, some of whom have built-up a considerable amount of influence and prestige by doing things that are not as constructive or important to the overall encyclopedia, would have a lot to lose under such a system. Or they would gain a lot more power, which could be disastrous. I don't want to name names (because I don't even remember them), but there are editors who amass credit by making pages for porn stars or pokemon. I'm not saying that either are not suitable to be included in WP, but being the expert on every single whore who has taken a load on her face for the cameras does not exactly qualify you to act like a high-ranking contributor when arguing with other editors. If anything, it should raise serious questions about your qualifications to make judgement about topics other than pornography. To make matters more disturbing, the average editor is in his teens. I'd like to think that the 14 year old boys are not the same editors who are pornography experts, but I know that both 14 year old boys and people who watch a lot of pornography have something in common: way too much time on their hands. This is also a trait shared by someone who can spend hours at a time arguing on wikipedia. What it really comes down to is, who exactly do we want to put in charge of all the information in the world? There have been editors who lied about being college professors with multiple doctorates, for "Bob's" sake. To be blunt to the point of vulgarity, Wikipedia cannot be run by beuraucratic fuckwads who play forum-style circlejerk politics while appealing to their own dubious authority which they invented by skeeting all over the keyboard. I mean, these people actually get off on this. And the whole wiki suffers as a result

Wikipedia has grown into something that everyone around the world uses on a daily basis as the first place to look for general information about anything (except for google, though wiki articles are usually a top result). For this reason, being an editor is no longer a right or a priviledge - it is a responsiblity to maintain the integrity of a specific group of pages. I say specific group because I strongly believe you should only maintain those pages that you feel qualified to make well-informed, impartial judgements about quality. Nobody can claim to be able to do this for a wide range of topics. Aside from spelling, grammar, and style corrections, which again can be handled by a separate group of editors who actually know what they are doing. This is not a "professional" site, but we should still strive for professional quality. Everybody should be free to contribute but there must be strict review of the content by qualified and dedicated editors for this site to be a true "encyclopedia", and not a laughingstock of the internets.


Dixi

X \' Z Z \' (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You make some valid points although I am wary of going to a full on verified only system as I think that would genuinely inhibit the editing process and discourage people from contributing which, vandals aside, is clearly a bad thing. Having said that though, I think that there is serious opportunity for this scheme to be expanded. I've never seen more than 5 articles queued for reviewing and yet there must be hundreds (thousands?) of people now with reviewer status. We seem to be trampling all over each other to review the same small pool of articles, resulting in a lot of duplicated effort and therefore lots of wasted editing effort. I would imagine that the Recent Changes patrol is also suffering as we are all focused on playing with our new toy. danno 19:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Too much fanaticism is the cancer killing wikipedia. Less editing is a sign of greater inherent quality. Too much content is bad. Too much change is also bad. If an article already has everything it needs, don't let it grow. If an article doesn't, identify what it needs and only let that be added. People really should not be contributing unless they notice a specific and obvious error (spelling, repetition, etc.) or they actually know something that is missing from the article. For any given article there should be a very low probability of the former, and for any given user there should be a very low probability of the latter. X \' Z Z \' (I apologize in advance for certain individuals who are too sensitive to hear the truth) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
How can you ever hope to expand stub articles if you proscribe what needs to be added? What needs to be added is pretty much everything and its often done by new and/or unregistered editors. If I were a new editor trying to make a genuine contribution but finding that my every edit had to be agreed by some faceless overseer I don't think that I'd bother. Perhaps it would be a benefit for every featured article to be on the list as they are by definition pretty much complete. The vast majority of articles on the other hand genuinely benefit from frequent editing, if only to keep them in the eye of the editing community as a whole rather than festering unloved and unwatched somewhere. danno 20:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
If people know that what they are adding is needed then why would have to worry about the "overseer"? For that matter, why should the overseer be "faceless"? I would make no secret of my responsibilities if I was tasked with overseeing a particular group of articles. As for "prescribing" what needs to be added, this is pretty much common sense, no? Articles about people should include biographical information, maybe some background, the specific reasons for their notability, hopefully a (free) picture. Articles about cities should include sections on the geography, demographics, history, economy, notable figures, and some pictures or maps. Again, I want to refer to how ru.wikipedia does things (only because imho, they have a much better system for it) - they actually put outlines in their stubs. They add headers as placeholders for future content, so that people know what needs to be added and where it needs to go. This does not seem like a very difficult concept to me, but I guess I must be one of the few people on here who isn't a complete idiot. X \' Z Z \' (I apologize in advance for certain individuals who are too sensitive to hear the truth) 20:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for agreeing with you in any way as it has clearly offended you. I shall go and conduct my idiocy elsewhere, although given your self professed omniscience it may be difficult to completely remove myself from your all-seeing gaze! danno 20:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Accept by auto-confirmed

How about allowing all auto-confirmed users to accept a pending change? As they can edit, they could make the same change, it makes sense they can accept a pending change. Lionel Elie Mamane (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That will probably be the way it ends up, but keeping it as a separate user function group allows some flexibility to remove it easily from people who are not willing to do reviews, but just accept everything (vandalism or not).--Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The minimal set of requirements for auto-confirmation hardly imply a qualification for any sort of supervisory role. Varlaam (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Per Varlaam. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that anyone is getting Lionel's point. What I think he is saying is this: User A, who is autoconfirmed but not a reviewer, can not accept changes made by Users B and C, who are not autoconfirmed. However, if User A had made the same changes himself they would have been automatically accepted.

I think at least part of the explanation for this apparent inconsistency is that it is easier to hold people to account for changes they make themselves, as opposed to changes they accept from others. If User B had inserted a BLP violation, and then User A had accepted it, User A might reasonably say "I didn't notice" or "I didn't realise that wasn't allowed". If we make reviewing an extra user right then anyone accepting a version should realise what they are doing.

Obviously, User A could still make a BLP violation himself but this will be a smaller number of cases. Where it is likely to be a frequent occurance, we can use PCPL2 (pending changes protection level 2).

Yaris678 (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea

I have to say, this is a good idea. It's a very effective tool for fighting vandalism-Wikipedia's worst enemy. I think this will create a massive boost in quality of content. Whoever thought this up deserves a pat on the shoulder. --Zero TalkContribs 22:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the "Reject" button?

When reviewing a pending change, there is an "Accept" button, and a greyed-out "Unaccept" button. So, when I first look at this interface, it appears that I have the option to either accept the change, or.... no other choice. Upon delving deeper into the pending changes instructions and whatnot, I finally found that we are expected to either "Accept" the change or manually revert it. This seems like an extraneous unintuitive step. I think there should be an "Accept" and a "Reject" button. If you click the Reject button, the edit is automatically reverted with an edit summary of something like "Reverting to edit 12345678 by User:Whoever; edit by User:1.2.3.4 have been rejected by User:Snottywong". Otherwise, rejecting an edit requires too many steps: 1-Open the diff to review the edit, 2-Click the undo button, 3-Load the Undo Confirmation page, 4-Click the submit button. There's no reason you should have to load two separate pages to reject an edit. And, if there are intermediate edits after the unreviewed edit which make a simple undo impossible, then and only then would you have to go to a second page to manually edit the article to manually remove the edit. Btw, the "Unaccept" button appears to be completely useless. SnottyWong communicate 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Installing Twinkle or the equivalent provides the functionality you're describing. Gerardw (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

See #Unapprove button above and review the specification for the "reject" button being worked on in the labs. Yaris678 (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahh. Very nice thanks. SnottyWong verbalize 15:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Two points here: First, the "reject" button kind of exists. You just need rollback rights for that (that's probably why editors on dewiki automatically also get rollback). Second: The "unaccept" button is really rarelly used, but it has a use: It can be used to remove the mark on a specific version, i.e if you after accepting find out that accepting wasn't a so good idea anyway and you want someone else to look over it.
Remember, that you always have three options when checking a pending changes edit: Accept it, revert it or do nothing, if you are unsure (i.e if the edit is not pure vandalism but you question the factual accuracy) --PaterMcFly talk contribs 08:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The "reject" button is really just Reverting/Undoing the edit in the same way as before Pending Changes. Furthermore, As PaterMcFly pointer Out the "Unaccept" isn't really used and only works i.e is availible to accepted changes. Floul1Talk To me 16:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As a new editor, I like it

I don't have a problem with it, It will not take me long to become a verified editor and be able to enact immediate changes. It seems like a small cost, and I don't think it will slow down too much the casual-but-constructive edits. I suspect most of these are one-offs where someone is bothered by a typo etc. Anyone with a serious desire to edit will soon be part of the family. Since becoming an editor, I've asked my colleagues if they knew they could edit anonymously, and most of them had no idea!

BUT:

- I don't know how serious the problem of vandalism was. My instinct tells me it probably was serious in a small number of cases which this is meant to protect. Since most people are not aware how easy it is to edit, they might run into a bad piece of vandalism and immediately be turned off Wikipedia forever. That's bad.

user: frognog 11:30. 20 July 2010

The problem of vandalism was (and still is) massive. There's one edit every two seconds, so you can imagine how many vandalism edits there are every day. With this tool, vandalism will most likely drop significantly. --Zero TalkContribs 01:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So far so good

I have been away for many weeks. So just recently got my hands on the pending changes feature on Wikipedia and so far heartily approve. I had understood the concept for a long time having used a similiar system on wikibooks. The pending changes trial implementation here on Wikipedia has been done really well, not just the techinal but also the decision on who has access etc, it's a delicate balance between giving it to those who would find it useful and not giving to those who would misuse, a balance that so far as I can tell has been achieved well. I fully support an extention of the trial to incorparate more articles although I do imagine issues with articles that are extremely active and also those articles that are very inactive, but many articles are in-between and so the tool is useful for many articles. I am also glad to see(but I've not used) the use of pending changes on child items of an article. In the future many templates can be unprotected and put on pending changes instead. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's fundamental problem

As as we are on this discussion i just wanted to note that a problem in Wikipedia is "Majority rules". for example lets take any conflict concerning Israel and Arabs. in the world there are 13 Million jews, as opposed to 1.57 billion Islamic arabs. this creates an "auto veto" for every matter concerning arabs. The example of Jews and Arabs is just one out of a few out there. A proper solution would be creating a panel of 6-10 "specialists" for each "sensitive wikipedia value" where there is an even number of supporters for both sides. gadishoshani (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

...is that the barrier to entry is too low. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Israel/Arab example neglects that there are about 5 billion non-Jewish non-Arabs who have the ability to recognize biased ignorance, and who have the numbers to overpower them all. Further, Wikipedia does not suffer from the problems that exist in democratic plurality votes caused by giving each person exactly one vote. Rather, on Wikipedia, the vote is proportional to how much one cares. At first, this may seem to favor the ignorant and radically biased people, but over time, Wikipedia has demonstrated that there is more sum interest in the world in being truthful and objective. That's why Wikipedia has worked so very well. If you make "specialists" the custodians of truth, you drive off the 5 billion people who would keep things in balance and cast the problem onto that of selecting unbiased specialists. This problem was described in much simpler terms long ago: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (Who will guard the guards?) It sounds like you would prefer a republic over a democracy, but that only works if the representatives actually represent you. How would your specialists be held accountable?--Headlessplatter (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not enough articles

Good idea, but so far, there are not enough articles under this regime. The result is too many eager editors trying to review and act on too few articles; they are stumbling over each other, without getting much practice on working the review process! Hmains (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Concur. Although I think this will become less of an issue. Firstly, the novelty will wear off and secondly, if this idea gets beyond a trial it will be applied to more than the 2000 articles it is currently limited to. Having said that, we do still need to deal with the issue of a review conflict. Yaris678 (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Sneaks in, looks around innocently... Well, I've been doing my best to apply PC1 any time an editor requests semi-protection at WP:RFPP... ;-) TFOWR 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO there's a conflict of priorities - WP needs new editors at at least the replacement level, but WP's policies and guidelines are an increasing obstacle for newcomers. I'm working (when I get time) on a project User:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors to bring WP and newcomers together. If you have any ideas, please add them at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors. --Philcha (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that pending changes is necessarily worsening the problem, however - I see it as a less restrictive alternative to semi-protection, i.e. instead of throwing up an insurmountable barrier to new and unregistered editors, pending changes (PC1) allows them to contribute. Of course, if pending changes starts to be used as an alternative to no protection, it would be a barrier (though still a lower barrier than the alternatives). TFOWR 06:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Location of Articles with Pending Changes

Why are we using Special:OldReviewedPages as the place to list the pages? That title seems totally confusing - it took me like ten minutes to figure out where the pages with pending changes were. Why not use Special:Pages with pending changes, since that's the title of the page anyway? Isn't that more intuitive.

Also, I think that if this becomes a permanent feature, that link should be on the Community portal page, in which case Wikipedia:Pages with pending changes is maybe where it should have its permanent home?

There may be some issue here I'm missing because I'm insufficiently tech savvy.

Adam sk (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The section Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback#Naming_of_OldReviewedPages already addresses this. (Feel free to move your comment there and delete his one.) Gerardw (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

vandalism automatically accepted

A short time ago vandalism on chess was automatically accepted. That needs to be made tighter. The vandal's talk page showed previous vandalism and three Speedy Deletes. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the case of a vandal who had been autoconfirmed but had not yet been identified as a vandal. Such people will also be able to vandalise pages under WP:Semi-protection but they will be caught sooner or later so the problem should not last long. One solution is to use PCPL2 (pending changes protection level 2) but this should be used sparingly. If a page has only occasional problems then I think PCPL1 is fine. Yaris678 (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Why not prevent the problem from occurring? Don't autoconfirm editors with a bad record. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the whole thing with 'autocomfirm', it happens automatically. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Then if the idea is to stop vandalism, it is not doing its job. Don't automatically confirm editors with a bad history. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Then how would users
  • Edit semi-protected pages (autoconfirmed)
  • Have one's own revisions automatically marked as "accepted" (autoreview)
  • Mark others' edits as patrolled (patrol)
  • Move pages (move)
  • Move pages under pending changes (movestable)
  • Overwrite existing files (reupload)
  • Perform captcha triggering actions without having to go through the captcha (skipcaptcha)
  • Save books as community page in the book namespace (collectionsaveascommunitypage)
  • Save books as user page (collectionsaveasuserpage)
  • Upload files (upload)
Those are the things autoconfirmed users can do, from Special:ListGroupRights. We've all come to rely on being able to do these things, and forcing the right to be assigned manually would put too much burden on administrators/bureaucrats/whoever would be assigning the right. Reach Out to the Truth 22:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a three year old account with little history of vandalism. If we don't let users like that edit, who's gonna write Wikipedia? Gerardw (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 23:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Spammers getting cleverer

Thanks for putting pending changes on Intelligence quotient. I think I'm all in favour from what I've seen elsewhere. Unfortunately I have to report what seems to be happening on this article is that the spammer, who keeps jumping ips, is now dressing up a reference to their site in some factoid from a subtopic referenced from this article and putting in a citation. Reviewers then think it is fine and pass the edit. I'm much happier than with the straight externals and hopefully they'll give up soon since they have to work harder. Dmcq (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It seem you're writing about 1 specific spammer - is it Mats Envall? --Philcha (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Where this sort of thing is frequent, semi-protection seems like the best answer.Yaris678 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I Kind of Like it

This seems to help me from making weird mistakes with editing interfering with bots and other users. Like another user said above, so far so good. Thumbs up.--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire 04:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Way off topic question

Transwiki Watchlists

Why can't I see all the pages I want to watch on Wikipedias of different languages, Wiktionary, Wikpedia commons pictures, etc? The way it is now it's a drag coordinating with different projects. Chrisrus (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it really has nothing to do with pending changes, but it's because the MediaWiki software runs on separate instances for each project in each language. There's no sharing of information between the projects by the software itself, and that's just the way the software was written. You might want to ask about the possibilities at WP:VPT. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My two cents

In my opinion, the whole page protection process needs reconsideration, and, to some extent, the anyone can edit principle.

When Wikipedia was in its infancy, the fact that anyone could edit it was a positive feature because it fueled fast expansion. In 2010 it is a different story; the English Wikipedia is now so large and used as a reference work by so many that the anyone can edit ( i mean, unregistered users) feature is more often than not troublesome, hence it should be limited to new article creation and editing of stub and start class articles. Of course, one can still register multiple accounts, but that is an annoying process (need multiple emails as well) and in the end it would help discourage vandals.

In order to accomplish this, the article assessment process needs better regulation.

I would then automatically adjust the page protection level to the article quality.

Biographies of living persons (once confirmed) would enjoy higher protection at lower article levels.


Default edit policy for articles

Article Level/Quality Who Can Edit It Protection Level
New Article / Stub Anyone None
Start Anyone None
C Users None
B Users Pending Changes
A / GA / FA Autoconfirmed Pending Changes

Default edit policy for BLPs and other delicate articles as identified by admins

Article Level/Quality Who Can Edit It Protection Level
New Article / Stub Anyone None
Start Users None
C Users Pending Changes
B Autoconfirmed Pending Changes
A / GA / FA Semi-protected Semi-protected


--ItemirusMessage me! 10:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. That's even more of an insult to IPs than FR is right now, especially given that an IP can still improve a C, B, or A-grade article to help push it towards GA or FA status. Also, in re TFAs, they should never be semi'd unless vandalism gets extremely bad. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 18:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea either, you'd be surprised how much inaccuracy (and other stuff needing improvement) stays in articles just because they have those GA/FA stickers on them, so people are afraid to edit. If we had that as part of policy the problem would be much worse. Plus some articles need updating. And we grow the project by having pages available to edit (which is why I like pending changes as an improvement over semi-protection). delldot ∇. 05:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, but some streamlining and disambiguation needed

Overall I think pending changes is a good idea. I've been patrolling pending changes for the last few days, and the concept seems sound. There are usability issues, but most of them have already been mentioned above like the weird name of the pending changes page and the confusing and largely-pointless Unaccept button. Also, an "Accept and undo" button with a comment field that would allow for edits that are not obviously vandalism/BLP violations/etc to be quickly accepted but then immediately undone from the reviewing page would make that process more usable (this might be discussed already in the "Reject" proposal).

I'm also finding that the reviewing process is open to some interpretation regarding what to do when reviewing edits that are not obviously vandalism/BLP violations/etc, but where it's hard to tell whether it's a good edit. A literal reading of the reviewing guideline has me accepting such edits. Then if I can't tell with a reasonably easily whether the edit is good or not I'm shrugging and moving on, leaving some editor who knows the article better to figure out whether to undo. Is this the intended effect of the guideline? Should such edits be left to someone else to review - in which case, where in the guideline does it say this and how do other editors know you've stopped reviewing the edit? Do we need a "Stop reviewing" button? Ryan Paddy (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Having had a look at the "Reject" proposal, it doesn't seems to cover the "Accept and undo" situation I mentioned, where (following my understanding of the reviewing guideline) an edit should be acepted because it's not vandalism/BLP vio/etc, but you then want to undo it for other reasons. I'm curious - what is the point in accepting then immediately undoing instead of just undoing without accepting, what difference does it make? The accept-and-undo process seems unintuitive, so it's likely to be ignored by many reviewers. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Users accepting false additions

I am coming across a fair few reviewers that are accepting anything that is not wiki vandalism, on articles they don't have any understanding about at all. False additions, edits that are detrimental to the article and so on,just not vandalism is this correct. They say this page told them to do it Wikipedia:Reviewing is that correct? Off2riorob (talk)

In my opinion, it's a gray area that will probably have to be made more precise with experience, but my understanding is that it's probably best to accept, and then revert, in cases where there is a case to be made that it's a good-faith edit, even when other editors would agree that it's a detrimental edit. Sometimes, false additions are simple vandalism, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, it could do with stopping, they are accepting nonsense and not bothering to look or anything, that is not a grey area imo. Reviewing is what it says, if you don't know anything about the subject then do not accept it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to accept anything that isn't vandalism but then either correct the mistakes or revert or add a citation needed tag or what have you... It's just more in keeping with the policy to accept it but flag or revert it if it's just plain wrong. Vampyrecat (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it something that is written here Wikipedia:Reviewing that is making them think it is a good thing they are doing? Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of those editors. This is related to the section I opened above, but that's more about tools and this is more about how the reviewing guideline is working out in practice. Pending changes has been applied to a number of articles that were previously under semi-protection. The editors who watch those pages are used to not having to deal with IP editors. Under pending changes they still don't have to deal with obvious vandalism from IPs, but they now have to deal with more subtle incorrect IP edits that a reviewer may accept and then not know to undo. This puts a new load on the editors watching such pages, as they now have to undo such edits. If we think this is unacceptable, then the solution may be to add guidance to the reviewing guideline advising in what circumstances editors should leave articles unreviewed (if they can't discern whether the edit is good, for example). Also, as I mentioned above a "Stop reviewing" button would make this option clearer and de-mark the edit as under review so that other reviewers may be more inclined to look at it. Instructing reviewers to accept then undo if unsure whether the edit is good doesn't seem like a good solution to me - that would make pending changes fairly pointless. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Its got nothing to do with tools - you are looking at it from a blind persons point of view. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a trial process, there are bound to be some wrinkles that need ironing out. There's no call for snittiness towards editors who are attempting in good faith to follow the guidelines as written, instead of following their own personal opinion of how reviewing should work. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If john plays for United and an unconfirmed used changes it to City and a reviewer accepts it because he doesn't know anything about it and it might be a good faith edit is this correct as presently the guidelines are written? Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about the subject and it is not clear then move along, there is no hurry someone who does know something about it will be along soon enough. Off2riorob (talk)

Have you tried patrolling pending changes at Special:OldReviewedPages? Let's say a football article pops up with a pending change. I know that I can spot obvious vandalism to it, even if I don't usually edit football pages, so I click "review". If it's obvious vandalism, I undo it. If it looks like a plausible okay edit, but I don't know enough about the subject to be sure, then perhaps as you suggest I should leave it for someone else to review (note: the reviewing guidelines doesn't state this - it appears to say to accept the edit in these circumstances). So I go back to OldReviewedPages, and notice that the football article is marked as "under review". Because Wikipedia thinks I'm reviewing the article, even though I've actually given up on it. Other editors are unlikely to bother, thinking someone is already on it. If I had a "stop reviewing" button then the edit could be unmarked as under review. So if this is the direction we want to go, both a change to the reviewing guidelines and a tool for stopping reviewing would be sensible. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems it is multiple users (reviewers) are accepting edits from unconfirmed accounts that are false, incorrect and detrimental to the content and they don't look and check anything and they don't know anything about the article or the content they simply seem to be looking and if it doesn't shout wikipedia vandalism they are accepting it and them moving to the next article they know nothing about and following the same procedure. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this page Wikipedia:Reviewing needs a write so that reviewers stop doing this, I am seeing detrimental edits accepted more and more. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Think of reviewing like screening - it'll catch a great deal but not everything. An article's regular editors will still need to check those edits that make it through the reviewing process. Or - think of it like vandal fighting. A vandal fighter may spot vandalism and revert it, or they may miss it. The only difference is that if a vandal fighter misses a piece of vandalism we never know - their name isn't attached to the vandalism. But if I review an edit, and miss the fact it's (subtle) vandalism, my name's attached to it. I don't think I should be ashamed I missed subtle vandalism (though hopefully I'll learn from it...)
However... you do raise an interesting point. I tend to only review articles on my watchlist, which tend to be articles I'm more familiar with. Reviewers, by and large, review a far wider range of articles. I'd suggest as we all get more comfortable with reviewing we should aim to create guidelines that suggest which articles editors should review, and which articles they should leave to other reviewers.
So... Rob... fancy creating a draft essay? ;-) You were saying earlier you've not got much on your to-do list, right?!
TFOWR 20:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would rather dictate it... but here is how I basic do it....

As a reviewer you are now a trusted user, please review carefully and take your time. The first thing to look for is, is this clear WP:Vandalism? If it is, then undo the edit and state why in the editbox, if you are unsure then take a minute to investigate. If you decide to accept something then have a look at the addition and check if it looks correct, if there is no citation supporting the content then consider removing it as uncited. If required, refer to recent edit history, if you are still unsure, better not to accept the pending change as it may be detrimental to the article and may be a violation of WP:Guidelines. If everything looks good then, great, well done you have done a full review. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks pretty good - the key thing for me is to get the point across that there's no harm in leaving it as another reviewer will be able to review it. The advice in the second half is spot on - it's a good process to follow. Not copy-and-paste it into an essay! TFOWR 21:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I haven't read this entire discussion, but I believe Off2riorob's original concern is regarding what is called "sneaky vandalism", which resembles genuine editing and is therefore harder to detect. So, yes, I do not think pending changes is a surefire way to prevent this. As with users who regularly do recent changes patrol, those who are patrolling pending changes will probably only revert obvious vandalism, and will tend not to verify every single source or citation due to the time constraints of trying to keep up with the other vandals making edits. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not what pending is all about, remember pending is applied or is being applied as an alternative to semi protection, being a reviewer is much more detailed and responsible than reverting vandalism, for example as a vandal patrolling, you do not accept anything, you only remove vandalism and are not taking any personal responsibility for any additions to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the problems, in my opinion, is that it is still not clear whether pending should be an alternative to semi-protection, or whether it should be, in fact, an alternative to no protection at all. (See also #Observation, above.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Pending is another assistant to help us keep false or detrimental content out of our articles. I don't see this trial going anywhere, imo it looks as if it is clearly here to stay and is beneficial as another content protection tool, there has been cases where I removed it and cases where I asked for it, today it was very useful on an article that was in the news and breaking and there was only me and multiple unconfirmed users, it helped me accept some of the unconfirmed additions and reject others, I was able to control the content additions using the pending protection and tweak it and refine it as an experienced editor and the unconfirmed users were still able to contribute and join in which is what wiki is all about. If semi protection was applied it would have been totally different, the multiple unconfirmed accounts would have been unable to contribute anything at all.(apart from a talkpage request) although a lot of the unconfirmed desired additions were not accepted, their additions fully contributed to the final content, which is as I mentioned one of the core principles of the wikipedia that it is something that anyone can edit. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Re "being a reviewer is much more detailed and responsible than reverting vandalism": That was not the clear impression I got when reading WP:RVW#Reviewing process, especially where it says in the nutshell box, "Reviewing consists in determining if a new revision is acceptable for public view". Much of the gist of it is what I practiced regularly when I did recent changes patrol in the past. Nothing really says I should look carefully at the citations (except in the inherent practice of enforcing BLP articles). It's only I'm taking the extra step of pressing the "accept" button. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If that it the position you have from reading the detail then imo it needs changing, reviewing is exactly what it says it is, it is not the opposite of vandal patrol as in, it is not WP:VANDALISM so I accept. Also, if you came to an article that I am watching and you accept false detrimental edits thinking that you are doing good valuable work that is beneficial to the wikipedia you are going to get notes from me to stop doing it and I will revert you. If you continue to do it after I have had a word with you I will then start warning you as if you are a vandal. As, uncited, and falsification of content and test edit and then I will report you for a block Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The content guidelines are pretty clear that reviewing is just a screening for obvious vandalism. Remember allowing IPs to contribute is a core Wikimedia Foundation principal, so I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt to the IP. Sending individual editors notes because they're following the policy isn't appropriate; working to change the policy is. Gerardw (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think my position is supported in current policy and it is users that are interpreting pending guidelines and failing to evaluate them combined with other established addition of content guidelines that are in error. Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit shocked to read this conversation... when I review changes I do the following:

  • Take a look at the change
  • If it is obvious vandalism revert it
  • If it could be a legit edit take a look at the edit summary and content (e.g. I would approve edits with decent edit smmary or where is it just grammar/style/non-contentious wording changes etc.)
  • Where an edit raises suspicion I take a second to see if I can trivially check the source (or verify it other ways)
  • If not possible to do any of the above I leave it for someone else to review.

I also usually ignore the "under review" yellow. I think that is only really a pointer seeing as you can't see how long ago (and how many) are reviewing.I think that accepting changes without actually reviewing them is actually detrimental to pages with the pending changes flag - because "accepted" gives more weight to an edit meaning false info may last longer. As I read it the whole point in reviewing is a step above simple vandalism patrol - it is about adding a simple level of edit/fact checking on top of articles with high IP traffic To my mind the policy for reviewing should read like that --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You're shocked that editors are following the reviewing guideline? If you're going to be shocked at something, shouldn't it be that the reviewing guideline doesn't match your idea of what reviewing should be? Likewise, the talk above of blocking users for following the guideline seems to be a case of misdirected grumpiness. I didn't write the guideline, I don't know what the reasoning behind it was - I'm just responding to being made a reviewer by attempting to follow the documentation. For now, I'm going to stop reviewing until there's some clarity on whether the existing guideline has consensus. Right now that consensus is looking suspect, and I don't feel like being given shit and obliquely warned with blocking for following the letter of the process provided. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively you could just keep reviewing according to the current guideline and ignore misdirected grumpiness. Gerardw (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I could, but I think the objection to the existing guideline has merit. Compared to a normal article, pending changes acts as a superior filter. But compared to a semi-protected article, pending changes acts as an inferior filter. I'm uncomfortable accepting potentially erroneous pending changes to articles that may previously have been semi-protected, if that means creating more work for the users who watch those articles who previously didn't have to worry about inaccuracies being added by IPs, and also means increasing the number of inaccuracies visible to IP readers on Wikipedia until the bad edit is spotted and fixed. I might be happy to continue reviewing, but to avoid accepting changes where I'm not sure about the accuracy (even though that's not what the current guideline says to do, it doesn't say NOT to do it either). However, I'm uncomfortable leaving changes in the "under review" state when I'm not reviewing them. So I think I'll wait until the guideline and the tool falls more in line with reality before using it. Like I said - good tool, needs streamlining. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think off2riorob needs to either go to Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing and propose his changes to the guideline, or refrain from criticising users for following it. Despite his and tmorton166's dismay at the actions of users who are following the guideline, I don't see any indication that they or anyone else is attempting to change it - surely their critical energy would be better spent there? I would like to see the philosophical underpinnings of the current guideline defended by whoever wrote it, and the pros and cons of the alternative options presented, so that we can see whether the guideline is being interpreted correctly and where the consensus lies on what it should say. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As I said, I think editors need to use the guidelines for pending combined with all other guidelines and I did write a little summary, which I hope is helpful to reviewers.
* As a reviewer you are now a trusted user, please review carefully and take your time. The first thing to look for is, is this clear WP:Vandalism?
  If it is, then undo the edit and state why in the editbox, if you are unsure then take a minute to investigate. If you decide to accept something then
  have a look at the addition and check if it looks correct, if there is no citation supporting the content then consider removing it as uncited. If
  required, refer to recent edit history, if you are still unsure, better not to accept the pending change as it may be detrimental to the article and
  may be a violation of WP:Guidelines. If everything looks good  then, great, well done you have done a full review.  User:Off2riorob 26 July 2010

Reviewers should view the accepting or declining of a change as their responsibility. That means, similar to AFC, if the reviewer wrongly accepts a change, it's his/her fault. If the reviewer is not willing to go great lengths to verify the change, I don't think that person should be a reviewer. Being a reviewer is not only about reverting or accepting a change, it's also about researching to see if the change is factually correct. BejinhanTalk 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Note the absence from the list of "it looks like it could be true but it actually isn't." Yaris678 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that is simply subjective and, if done in good faith, is not an issue. I've reviewed edits that looked (and with cursory investigation seemed) acceptable/non-controversial but got reverted later by someone closer to the subject. That's fine to my mind. But if you have any element of doubt in the edit or no way to reasonably verify the change I do not see a reason to just accept and leave it for an article watcher to catch. If that is the case then it is better to leave it unaccepted because article watchers get a big box at the top saying "unreviewed changes exist on your watchlist" (or something). I realise a lot of this is not current policy; but it kind of seemed common sense to me when I started reviewing stuff that it required at least a cursory examination for verifiability. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess the question is where to draw the line on the spectrum between two points:
  1. Patent nonsense, patent lies, patent advertising and patent irrelevance.
  2. Relevant, well-written information, contributing to the neutrality of the article and sourced to reliable sources.
The guideline WP:Reviewing currently seems to draw the line fairly close to the first point. This is as it should be because a wiki is supposed to be contributed to by anyone and improved over time. Some people seem to want to move the line slightly closer to point 2. I'm sure there is an argument worth making there but disparaging those who follow the guideline as written isn't going to help.
Part of the problem here is that we are explicitly told that we need to keep out vandalism, but vandalism can come in many forms, including deliberately adding things that appear to be true, but aren't. The important word there is deliberately. How can we know someone's intentions, except in the most patent of cases? I guess some people are applying WP:Assume good faith or else reading about the purpose of reviewing and accepting the change.
That seems to make sense, but I can see a down side in that vandals might feel even more gratified than when they vandalise an unprotected page. Now they feel like they have hoodwinked someone ("Ooo, how exciting" they think to themselves).
Yaris678 (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As none of the editors who've been complaining about the guideline (or its outcome) have suggested any changes on the appropriate page, I've done it. Reviewing#Stop_reviewing_edit_if_unsureRyan Paddy (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, please take responsibility for your own actions, you have done this you have done that, not .. I have done this because harry did that and I have done that because John did that. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I treat WP policy and guidelines as the codified consensus of the Wikipedia community, and respect them even if I don't agree with them. Right now, that consensus appears to be saying that the purpose of pending change review is only to filter out obvious vandalism etc. If you think it should be otherwise, then go make your case on the correct page, and we'll see how the guideline comes out the other end of the discussion. Then I'll follow it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I looked at it your question was badly formed and leading and as such unlikely to result in much of an informative outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I posed the suggestion in good faith. I think it's a good idea, so I wouldn't deliberately undermine it. Perhaps you could stop barracking from the sidelines and attempt to change the guideline in the appropriate venue? I get the impression that most editors involved in this trial think reviewing should be just a scan for obvious vandalism etc, exactly the thing you don't want it to be. At the moment the consensus seems to be against your philosophy on what reviewing is for, but perhaps you can change that by doing a better job of making your case. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made my case as you call it here, as I said , to repeat myself although you don't seem to be interested and you appear to be purely reacting in an upset manor because I had a go at you for accepting false content to an article I was watching, that is no way to progress, or a good reason to open loaded discussions. As I said, I consider my position is already supported by policy and I don't know why you object to having a good look and taking some personal responsibility for content that you accept, any editor worth his salt would be happy to follow simple responsible efforts to add correct cited content compliant with policy. I don't need to make any case for my positions anywhere, it is already good practice. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Patent nonsense. Ryan was following the reviewing guideline as written. Gerardw (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hm, that is a matter of interpretation and I really find your positions strange, its alien to me to think from the angle that asserts, we are doing the right thing, we are adding false content to articles, anyways I am sure you don't want to add false content to articles, here is an example of what to do when you come across such a situation the false content and its rejection followed by the warning note, this is my recommendation and my understanding of the policies and guidelines as per best practice for wikipedia editors. Anyways, happy editing and thanks for your contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of pending changes is to allow anonymous editors to contribute to articles as an alternative to semi-protection. One or more of those editors is a great future contributor. It is important that their contribution be valued as quickly as possible -- the quicker the edit is visible the greater the positive feedback. The reviewing guideline is clear that it's a quick screen for obvious junk. To claim that anyone wants to add false content is a canard. The normal quality control measures -- recent changes, subject matter experts with the article watchlisted -- remain in place. I'm confident that if I miss something the community will correct the error.

The reviewing guidelines were written by the WP community and it would be disrespectful of me to ignore consensus and follow my own rules. To work to change that consensus is cool. To bitch at someone for following it is a WP:DICK move. Gerardw (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well. if you or anyone comes to an article I am watching and accepts fake content into it, as I said I will have a word with you about it, if people think they are doing a good thing by accepting false content into articles those people are on another planet to me, if there are multiple users like you going around interpreting pending changes in the same way as you then I will never request it to allegedly protect the articles I am watching and will attempt to insert or replace it with semi protection, however I don't think there are lots of editors following your interpretation of pending and I am sure most users are having a decent look and rejecting fake additions, in fact I have seen the vast majority of users interpreting pending to be a decent review and not just an acceptance of anything that is not clear vandalism. Also it is not being a dick to not want users to accept fake content into articles I am watching. thanks. If I was to see a user going from article to article repeatedly accepting false additions I would ask for his edits to be reviewed and request his reviewer status be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As a little after thought to you opining as to the broader values and reasons pending is applied, imo the chances of an unconfirmed user who makes one edit on a dynamic IP that changes Rio Ferdinand plays for Man Untied to Rio Ferdinand plays for Chelsea becoming a great future contributor is infinitesimally small and a reviewer that is going around accepting such unconfirmed desired additions is also unlikely to make the barnstar awarded valued reviewer status either and your opining that we should make some kind of rush acceptance of such false additions as a way of his receiving really fast feedback and appreciation of his false addition, to be honest is misguided indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback/Archive_4&oldid=1091465921"