Many online communities rely on postpublication moderation where contributors -- even those that are perceived as being risky -- are allowed to publish material immediately without review. An alternative arrangement involves moderating content before publication. A range of communities have argued against prepublication moderation by suggesting that it makes contributing less enjoyable for new members and that it will distract established community members with extra moderation work. We present an empirical analysis of the effects of a prepublication review system called \textit{FlaggedRevs} that was deployed by several Wikipedia language editions. We used panel data from 17 large Wikipedia editions to test a series of hypotheses related to the effect of the system on activity levels and contribution quality within the affected communities. We found that the system was very effective at keeping low-quality contributions from ever becoming visible. Although there is some evidence that the system discouraged participation among unregistered users, our analysis suggests that the system's effects on contribution volume and quality were moderate at most. Our findings imply that concerns regarding the major negative effects of prepublication moderation systems on contribution quality, project productivity, and community sustainability may be overstated.

翻译：许多在线社区依靠出版后节制,即允许撰稿人 -- -- 甚至那些被认为有风险的撰稿人 -- -- 不经审查即立即出版材料。一种替代安排是在出版前对内容进行调控。许多社区反对出版前节制,认为这样做会降低新成员的享受程度,而且会分散已确立的社区成员的注意力,开展非温和工作。我们对几个维基百科语言版本采用的名为\ textit{FlaxRevs}的出版前审查制度的影响进行了经验分析。我们利用17个大型维基百科版本的小组数据测试与该系统对受影响社区的活动水平和贡献质量的影响有关的一系列假设。我们发现,该系统非常有效,使低质量的贡献永远不为人所见。尽管有证据表明该系统不利于未注册用户的参与,但我们的分析表明,该系统对贡献量和质量的影响最多是温和的。我们的调查结果表明,对出版前节制制度对贡献质量、项目生产率和社区可持续性的重大负面影响的关切可能过大。