Just for reference, does having a lot of "protected" pages bog anything down? And what about different degrees of protected pages? "Controversial" pages? Wherin anon edits are limited?
Maybe also that one guys notion of limiting edits (interms of various quantities) for specific users ..... ? might not be such a bad idea after all, in a limited context. -S-
--- Brion Vibber vibber@aludra.usc.edu wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: [snip]
First, some pages (e.g. Israel) will probably just
have to permanently be
protected. Well, maybe you need some sort of
intermediate level of
protection; e.g. only editable by someone who a)
has an account, b) has
it for a month, and c) has made a threshold level
of accepted edits. But
allowing anyone, even someone who's not logged in,
to edit them is just
going to turn into a constant edit war.
What's your opinion on some of the suggestions at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_pages_considered_harmful
?
ie, a system whereby anyone can edit protected pages all they like, but changes to the generally presented 'current' version are deferred until the page is left to sit for a time. No limitation on _who's_ doing the editing.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com