Wikipedia talk:Patrolled revisions

Pending changes
Interface: Pages with pending edits · Pages under pending changes · Pending changes log ·
Documentation: Main talk · Reviewing guideline · Reviewing talk · Protection policy · Testing · Statistics

2010 Trial and 2012 Implementation

Historical: Trial proposal · Specifics · Reviewing guideline · Metrics · Terminology · Queue · Feedback · Closure · 2012 Implementation
Discussions:

Summary information for editors

Current status - Pending changes (level 1) was re-enabled on December 1st, 2012 by community consensus according to the 2012 RFC.
Logged in users – Logged in users (or users choosing to view pending changes) will see all edits as usual (unless the relevant setting has been changed in their preferences). All edits will still be added to the wiki and inappropriate edits must still be reverted or fixed as usual.
Logged out users – Until checked for obvious vandalism or superseded by appropriate editing, edits by new and unregistered users to "pending changes protected" pages will not be seen by users who are not logged in until approved. Edits by autoconfirmed users are approved automatically at level 1 when the prior revision is approved.
Policy – See the pending changes usage policy and the guideline on reviewing
Reviewer rights – Become a reviewer!.
Support and testing – Test page: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing. Bugs: Report them at WT:PC. For more information visit the IRC channel: #wikipedia-en-pc ^connect
Provide feedback and suggestion – Feedback page: Wikipedia talk:Pending changes. Your feedback and suggestions are appreciated.

Prioritizing articles

It may be interesting for reviewers to be able to prioritize articles, the simplest way would be to have two priorities for an article: normal (default) and high. There would the option to filter Special:Oldreviewedpages by high-priority articles. This priority system may also be used for Huggle, and for filtering the watchlist too. Articles may be marked as high-priority if they are high-visibility (a bot could be used for that, we have WP:POPULAR). Articles that are flag protected may also be prioritized by default. Cenarium (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T20673 in case we want this. Cenarium (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard of review

What exactly is the standard of review being proposed for patrolled revisions? Saying an article about a living person does not violate WP:BLP is not so simple. Are we talking about:

a best effort scan for obvious BLP problems?
verifying that each potentially contentious statement has a reference?
checking each reference to verify that it actually says what the article claims?
checking that each reference is a reliable source per WP:RS?
checking the living status and notability of each person mentioned besides the subject?

One arguably might need to do all of the above (and more) to assert the article does not violate BLP. It could be more work than a featured article review.

While I am not a lawyer, it seems to me there is also a potential legal issue here. As I understand it, while the Wikimedia Foundation is largely protected from legal action over article content by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, this protection does not apply to individual editors. While I suspect an editor who makes a good faith edit while ignoring some defamatory content faces little risk, I'm concerned about the potential exposure for a reviewer attesting that an article is free of such content, particularly in a way that other reviewers will then rely on.

One possible solution might be to make it clear that reviewers are only expected to do 1. above and that subsequent reviewers should not rely completely on the patrolled flag. Another approach might be to ask the editors who follow the article if they know of any outstanding issues with the current revision and set the patrolled flag, at least for the first review, only if no such issues are raised. The initial reviewer would then be merely summarizing a collective judgement, not asserting their own opinion.--agr (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems inactive. I've moved my question to Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions. Please respond there if you wish.--agr (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from Special:recentchanges->living people?

One question I have is how this feature is different from special:recentchanges->living people? I mean, wouldn't just adding flags to that, and then using that list be better than splitting valuable human resources to watch two lists? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recentchanges doesn't allow you to compare to a previously trusted revision. That's the point of patrolling revisions: it makes reviewing easier, so we're able to review more and faster. Cenarium (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - open ended patrol

Make this open-ended. Everyone (well, everyone able to patrol) who considers a revision "ok" can mark it as patrolled, and you can query for who has patrolled a given revision. (and with external tools, can easily determine from a personal whitelist which revisions are trustworthy. MW itself should support querying by last patrol and last reviewer+ patrol. Triona (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally(I was unsure whether somebody had given me "mark as patrolled" privilege) marked an edit as patrolled

How do I unmark it?(so it becomes like it was before) I was reviewing this edit and I clicked on "marked as patrolled". Nobody had ever told me I was given "mark as patrolled" privilege. Is this given to all wikidata users? How can I unmark this revision to not be considered patrolled? Thanks for your help! Dbfyinginfo (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]