A pet peeve of mine is people who copy and paste text from Wikipedia for tag wikis, don't source their text, and then get approved in the blink of an eye.
I'm aware that you can Improve a tag wiki if you have 20,000 rep, but I'm not quite there yet. So my options are:
- wait for the wiki to get approved anyways, go back and either add a source or clean up the text, or ...
- reject the edit, and hope that two other people notice the problem and flag the same.
You can guess which option happens much more often.
So, I have a few thoughts on how to handle this:
- One or two (preferably one) "Copied content" rejection should immediately reject the tag wiki edit.
- Each "Copied content" rejection increases the number of votes required to approve the edit by 1 or more votes, in the hopes that others are given enough time to flag appropriately.
- Any "Copied content" rejection voids any previous approvals, effectively starting the review process over.
BONUS FEATURE: Once an edit has been flagged as "Copied content", if you try to approve the edit, you get a warning first along the lines of "There are one or more "Copied content" rejection flags, are you sure you want to approve this?"
DOUBLE-BONUS FEATURE: As above, but once any edit has been flagged for any reason, if you try to approve the edit, you get a warning first indicating that the edit has one or more rejection votes.
Personally, my vote would go to #1 or #3, as #2 might be difficult to implement (but I have no idea what the code base looks like, so I could be completely wrong here).
The only problem with #1 I could see is that the "Copied content" flag would have to function differently for tag wiki edits than regular edits; otherwise, you could have people flagging everything as "Copied content" just to reject an edit quickly.
Option #3 could function as-is for both tag wiki edits and regular edits, since I don't think we wouldn't want copied content to be approved for either questions, answers or tag wikis.
After a week of giving the review queue another try again, I'd be in favor of Option #3 plus the DOUBLE-BONUS FEATURE.
It's a small sampling of data, but I pretty consistently came in as vote #3 on a Copied Content edit, would vote to reject, and then watch as the edit got its third approval vote (fourth vote in total) shortly afterwards.
If approval votes got cleared out from a Copied Content rejection and all future reviewers would see upfront that there is a rejection flag against the edit, this would go a long way to making sure the edits are handled properly.