Reading this thread and the 2019 GitHub issue that Mateusz linked near the top, it seems like everyone participating in the discussion agrees that something should be done, but both threads show it’s complicated. I’m skeptical we’ll find agreement through normal community discussion. Based on what I’ve read, I’m wondering if one way the board could help us is to form a working group on this topic - specifically covering needed tools and ecosystem changes to address vandalism and accidental and consequential edits from new users, but maybe more broadly construed to also cover the suite of tools and incentives for reviewers of edits too. It could maybe also cover social aspects and potential solutions discussed here. I agree with Steve that it affects the fundamental nature of the project, so it should be deliberate and thoughtful, and I think an organized group on the issue could do that.
I’d think a group working on this should have representative from operations, website development, API development, editor developers, DWG, and various community members based upon these existing discussions. A thread like this provides potential options, but a working group could dive deep to find solutions that solve the issues mentioned here that are blocking us from dealing with the problem, make recommendations, and suggest a timeline for each of that parties involved.
If that’s just more overhead on this issue and not helpful, I don’t need to push the idea further, but it’s what I was thinking as I read through all of this. It needs a concerted long-term push that involves people from all parts of the OSM community if we hope to actually address the problem.