Well, it's closed now...
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:18 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/13 Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com:
Honestly, all of those articles should be under heavy lock and probation
key
with all the regular partisans, admins or not, kept not just on a short leash but under threat of imminent tasering by everyone else. I'm amazed they aren't.
There's a strong cultural bias against locking articles at all, so protection or semi-protection is only applied when absolutely necessary in general (there's lots of people who regularly go over the lists of locked articles to see if they can be unlocked yet).
For particular perennially problematic subject areas, this would mean semipermanent locking would only be applied by arbcom ruling, and even then they prefer to deal with it by dealing with problematic individuals. Even when, because an article is about a real-world conflict, there's an endless supply of problematic individuals. I expect this would be arbcom's extreme reluctance to get into content arbitration.
(There's various moves to form a content-mediation committee, which wouldn't have the force of arbitration but would help editors of good will sort this stuff out - not binding, but would certainly count as evidence of good will the way sincerely attempting mediation does.)
d.
d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l