Delirium wrote:
I suppose I'm not really sure what this will buy
us. It only takes
away the class of problems: "page doesn't exist, anon creats a bad
one". These are actually among the easiest to spot. Much harder are:
"page exists as a stub, anon adds a sentence to it that is bad".
These are harder to spot, and this does not address that; in fact, it
will encourage troublesome anons to just find existing articles to put
misinformation into, rather than creating new ones. I think, on the
whole, that would be *more* of a problem.
To clarify (I should've put this in my initial message), I think the
fundamental problem is un-vetted anonymous edits (or edits in general,
but most problematic ones are anonymous), and taking away the class of
edits that occur at page titles that don't yet exist isn't much of a
gain, because there are over 100,000 obscure stubs on the English
Wikipedia that provide a vast array of extant page titles to choose
from. In this case it just happened that the page didn't yet exist, but
it could just as easily have happened that someone created an obscure
1-line stub, and then the anonymous user came by later to edit the
stub---it would still be an obscure article that nobody would find,
because the person isn't all that notable, and the edits would have a
pretty good chance of remaining there.
So, more interesting would be to address the fundamental problem---that
is, mark revisions that have been reviewed by [n] people.
-Mark