On 2/3/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
With all due respect, that's a stupid position. By logical extension of
it we'd semi-protect all articles. Then we'd notice that vandalism still
happened, so we'd fully protect all articles ('great, it stops vandalism
happening in the first place!').
It's simply a question of balance. Stopping vandalism is great.
Stopping legitimate edits is bad. Losing one legitimate edit for every
100 vandalistic edits is great (see GWB). Losing one legitimate edit
for every one vandalistic edit is not so great.
Page protection of any kind is against what the whole
project stands
for. It's a *necessary* evil, but people need to remember that it's
still evil.
And on same pages it's more necessary than others. It's obviously
least necessary on pages that receive regular attention and no
vandalism. It's more necessary on pages that receive little attention
and intermittent vandalism. It's even more necessary on pages that
receive constant vandalism with such frequency that even vandalism
response rates of five minutes are unacceptable.
Steve