On 10/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 10/20/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I
have indefinitely
full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
It seems to be an extreme case that indeed that calls for some unusual
measures. How about appointing or electing an NPOV editing group for
this article who have authority to revert/block as needed? Then the
article itself could remain open or semi-protected.
This particular scenario, i.e. an article whose future updates must be
pre-approved by admins, is extreme, but it is also in the same vane as
sighted versions (Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions) and other
proposals that will have the effect of exerting greater control on the
content submission process. For sighted versions, editting continues as is,
but the version made visible to not-logged-in visitors is controlled by
"Surveyors" who approve specific editions.
Personally, I feel that as individual articles mature, imposing greater
control over the content development process is a natural and in many cases
neccesary part of Wikipedia's evolution as we move towards greater quality.
There are many high profile, well-developed articles where well over 50% of
the recent edits are consumed by vandalism and combatting vandalism, and
that is a wasteful use of people's time and resources.
So I for one welcome the move to stop wasting time on unproductive disputes
and consider the use of extended protection.
Ultimately though I think Wikipedia will need to develop a better toolkit
for dealing with our mature content areas where large portions of the
traffic is deleterious rather than productive.
-Robert Rohde