On 31/03/2009, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
There's change, and then there is the seeming of change. I don't think its cynical to oppose processes that appear to be helpful, but may actually set progress back.
I'm pretty sure it's inevitable in the long run though. In the early days of anything like wikipedia drastic changes are going to be the norm; the articles aren't worth protecting much, almost any change improves the articles, in some cases even those by vandals! Later, when the articles are in a generally good state, changes have to mulled over more carefully, because you're protecting the information and effort that was put there over several years; most changes are likely to lower the quality.
So you would expect that vandal protection and stabilisation and quality control in general will need beefing up as the wikipedia approaches a finish.
The only question in my mind is how soon or late we do this, not whether we do this.
It looks like there's a convincing argument that says that BLP articles need it right now, so that's the current need, and it will spread out into the wikipedia from there; perhaps into FA quality articles after that.
Nathan