Wikipedia:Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

To the Wikimedia Foundation:

We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed implementation of Flagged revisions on the English-language Wikipedia.[edit]

Note: We ask that the aforementioned extension not be enabled on this project. The statement used at Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions indicates that "The trial is intended as a conservative starting point for using flagged revisions", meaning that if it is successful, it could go further. We would like immediate clarification of who is to be the judge of the trial's success or failure. Is it the reviewers, Jimbo Wales, the development staff, or someone else? Until this is discussed in a clear and timely fashion, the undersigned parties strongly oppose the implementation of Flagged Revisions, primarily since there is no clear guideline on who decides what.
  1. Signed, as creator of this petition. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. Flagged Revisions hinders Wikipedians from participating!--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Without endorsing every jot and tittle of the above phrasing, it's a fact that flagged revisions will make our BLPs worse, not better, Gavia immer (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. flagged revisions is too dramatic of a solution to a simple problem. Simply semi-protecting BLPs accomplishes reducing vandalism on BLPs without changing the Wiki model people have become accustomed to. Flagged revisions creates more work for editors and raises legal questions about liability that have not yet been answered at all. FRs are a stupid, complex solution to a simple problem. PS I think petitions would be bad thing for Wikipedia if they become common and am only signing this in response to the arrogant "pro"-flagged revision petition. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. SoWhy 17:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. Let's not get in over our heads. ThemFromSpace 03:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. Way too public and draconian to be of any good to any end except driving editors off. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 09:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  9. Per above, I recall the !vote was only 60-40 in support, were most types of important decisions are 70-30. Will most definitely drive editors off. Ikip 01:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Support in principal; the only reason I don't wish to sign this is due to the fact that I don't think that petitions are the way to solve anything on wikipedia. SpitfireTally-ho! 21:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  10. F*** no. Flagged Revisions will be a Wikipedia disaster. ConCompS (Talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  11. Sorry, this seems like a good idea, but more information is needed. warrior4321 19:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  12. Who is expected to patrol these flagged revisions? Is it me? Who, specifically, is responsible for clearing the backlogs? How long a backlog is acceptable? What happens when that length is exceeded?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  13. Wikipedia won't be a true wiki anymore should this be implemented. What a thrill it was to make my first edit and have it visible immediately. Clickpop (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  14. Flagged Revisions hinders Wikipedians from participating! Even we have seen administrators performing controversial decisions, which don't go well with other non-involved editors. Flagged revisions will just add to further already some many controversies going on. From my experience at WP:ITN I have foreseen what will happen if we enable flagged revisions.--yousaf465' 04:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  15. Will most definitely lead to the end of Wikipedia Radon210 21:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  16. This would discourage boldness, and drive away new editors. They are the backbone of wikipedia, correcting minor errors and joining the community. This will discourage them from even editing. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  17. FASTILY (TALK) 11:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  18. Knowing it from de.wikipedia, this is just annoying as a new user, and especially worse for readers if redlinks, disambig links, red image links or spelling errors remain in an article for weeks because no one checks them. Most vandalism gets reverted anyways in a fast time, and the few vandalism that remains longer is not a reason to let good edits wait for weeks until they appear to the reader. There are quite a lot good edits by unregistered or new users. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  19. FR's are fundamentally contrary to what Wikipedia is about: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". 2 says you, says two 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  20. When Wikipedia is facing challenges to growth, it needs to open up. It's doing this with the usability project, the end goal - I hope, is for fully WYSIWYG editing. Blocking anonymous, and even autoconfirmed users from editing the live version works against this immeasurably. I, and many others, would not have started editing had my edits been relegated to the untrusted pool. The "draft" version needs to be the live, default, published version. The "confirmed" version should be relegated for the fuddy-duddy types who prefer encyclopedias to conform to 20th century norms. - hahnchen 13:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  21. FR is an evil that will ruin Wikipedia by undermining its philosophy and turning English Wikipedia into a huge bureaucratic machine (like Russian Wikipedia). SkyBonTalk/Contributions 02:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  22. Requirng anon editors to register and log in would had been the better step. This would had cut down on the vandalism. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  23. A credible set of guidelines to cover the use of the feature is the appropriate first step, and those policies don't currently exist. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  24. Even though it sounds good to replace semi protection with Flagged revs (which does open up those pages more) it will become an excuse to put more pages under flagged revs thereby making the whole of Wikipedia more closed. -- penubag  (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  25. Isn't it interesting how there's vote after petition after discussion for Flagged revs that only the supporters seem to know about? --Gwern (contribs) 14:47 5 January 2010 (GMT)
  26. With respect to Mr. Wales and the other proponents of Flagged Revisions, I must oppose its implementation as antithetical to the Wikipedia way. — James Kalmar 22:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  27. I strongly oppose FR with the reasons The Evil IP address mentioned. --LinDrug (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  28. Not going to re-iterate what I already typed ages before. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  29. TheEvilIP brings up some good points. I disagree with the concept in general. Killiondude (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  30. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  31. FR will not stop the vandalism, nor will they hide it. Vandals need to be removed and not helped, by, for example on German WP, being able to make just a few edits in order to gain reviewer status. I really dislike this whole idea/concept, it makes me feel sick to the stomach. Not to mention giving the rest of us an awful lot more work to do. Jared Preston (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  32. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. TotientDragooned (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  33. On behalf of the many occasional editors who will never see this page nor hear of FR until it prevents them from improving Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  34. --NERIUM (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  35. ¨¨ victor falk 05:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  36. As seen on de:, FR is transforming Wikipedia into Slowpedia, hinders users to participate and, hinders readers... to read... --Dэя-Бøяg 01:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

See also[edit]