Wikipedia:Edit Approval

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This is a failed proposal.

Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

To help filter out vandalism, many people watch the recent changes page. This helps, however has room for improvement. This is why Wikipedia needs a system, which has been named Edit Approval.

Step 1 - An edit is made edit

When an edit is made (whether brilliant prose or vandalism), it will appear on two special pages: Special:Recentchanges and a brand new special page: Special:Unapprovededits. Right when an edit is made, it is considered to be not approved yet. This does not mean that the edit isn't visible until approval — this just means it hasn't been looked over yet.

The Unapproved Edits special page would retain every unapproved edit until it either has been approved or reverted. Unlike the Recent Changes page, which lists every single edit made for a day, the Unapproved Edits page lists specifically edits that have not been approved. This is designed in mind that all the good edits will be lifted from the page, and the bad ones will remain to be rejected (and ultimately expired from the list, along with the day).

Step 2 - The edit's fate is decided edit

Special:Unapprovededits would list the yet-to-be-approved edits from oldest to newest — this way, all edits receive equal attention (eventually). From there, there are two possibilities for the edit:

If an administrator or a person who is considered trustful by any two administrators believes the edit is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, they will approve the edit. The recent changes page, as well as the edit history of the page that has been edited, will mark this edit as an approved edit.
Otherwise, an administrator would revert the edit, and the edit would be marked as rejected. When the day ends, the edit would just be expired from the list. The reversion of course would be placed on the Unapproved Edits page, but likely approved.

Case study edit

John Seigenthaler Sr. edit

In the latter half of 2005, the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy had resulted in negative press of Wikipedia, and could've resulted in more dire consequences. The reason? A libelous edit was made towards Mr. Seigenthaler — and it remained there for many months! The reason? The edit "slipped through the cracks," due to how patrolling the Recent Changes page works. There is at least one edit made every second, so if there are not enough "RC patrollers," then the edit would go unnoticed. It could surface up again and cause trouble for Wikipedia.

However, had the Edit Approval policy been in effect, the vandalistic edits would have been logged on the Unapproved Edits page for later, easier viewing. (Remember, the oldest unapproved edits are first on the list.) Shortly after, the edits would get rejected and reverted.

Conclusion edit

Hopefully, with the right policies in place and new technical implementations, Wikipedia will cut down on vandalism. Who knows, it might even get more people interested in us seeing as there is some level of approval! Now, do what Wikipedia does best: edit, expand, discuss, and fix!