The way I look at it, there already is one in group, and one out. Admins can theoretically read and write anything. Other users can block creations with {{db-nonsense}}, and only admins can over-ride the decision. Keep in mind that BLP is a specific issue, and one that Wales said we should moderate. So, perhaps admins should be told that moderation should never be done in haste. For the vast majority of articles, comments about current events in politics on [[coliseum]] would be normal. For high-traffic articles in sex, such comments would be downright mind-numbing. In BLP, though, an admin raises a "Flags" tab on the page and enables write access for group, then disables it for EveryOneElse -- at the first edit war (or anything like it). That is how it is with semi-protected, already -- no IP#s. My proposal would hav more groups created. There could be a bot-approved application process to be a group member in quiz form -- you can't get in until you get 100%. If you do not know, then you ask somebody who does, because it's a pass or fail test with no score. The objective is to reduce actions like blocks, which is about the fourth group that already exists in [[category:blocked users that are not dicks]].
My rule for sporadic moderation on USENET is only "If it sells something and it does not relate to the group, then ask (probably abuse@groups.google.com) for it to be deleted". I gather that it is more complicated, here. ________ Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
"FT2" ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote in message news:e71d9fab0907220539v256537e7we70cf4ff7570f43e@mail.gmail.com...
The idea of restricting asrticle writing to a small group ("experienced article writers" "admins" "veterans" "blp specialists endorsed by the community") has been raised before. In principle if the group is made large enough to not be owned by some small clique and with a suitable policy guiding how it works and its responsiveness, it's viable without undermining NPOV and openness.
The crunch point is "open to editing by all", and a large number of users take that aspect seriously and literally. Philosophically once "open to all" is drawn back, the same logic applies to any type of article where a person or group might be unhappy with editing, and there's also a risk that groups once created tend to gravitate to their own internally developed norms or to become slightly separated.
Open editing is a major safeguard against Wikipedia being able to be monopolized by some special interest group, or affected by censorship of some minority or externally imposed stance. Add a means to limit article control to some group, and there's always a risk it can be used in future in other ways.....
Not agreeing or disagreeing, more just outlining the perceived pros cons and issues.
FT2
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Jay Litwyn <brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
Subject-Was: Re: A new solution for the BLP dilemma
"Nothing new is under the sun", are among the most humbling of a preacher's words. If you hav ever right-clicked on a file that you uploaded to your website (and you probably hav one that you are not using), then clicked on "properties", you would be greeted with this menu of flags, all within your control: R W P e r e a i r d t m e i t Owner: X X O Group: O O O Everyone: X O O
Those would be appropriate settings for your user page, which is the only one that the system would let you own. Admins would be owners of all pages in main: and user: on wikipedia. That way, if you you refused to comply with one rule or another concerning how user space is used, then an admin would permit everyone to also be able to write to your space, so that a volunteer could show you his ignorance of those rules :-) I can almost see the author of "vandalproof" hanging his head and asking why he did not think of that.
group permission is a special feature of protected file systems. Windows does not hav group permission in XP, TMK, and it does let you protect shared objects from being written to. My web server is NetBSD, so it does hav groups. Users can be added to groups, so that people who hav made applications for being included in a group -- applications to a sysop would let you write files in a particular project, because you were a member of the required group.
In a series of occurances, here is how a biography might become authorized and get a special stamp of approval from the subject of the biography. Someone write's a biography about someone else on their user page. They let it out among their collaborators. Two of those collaborators want to fix it, so the starter permits everyone to write to it. An edit war breaks out, so the sysop (sysops always hav power to permit, as well as power to destroy, which is not displayed) retracts all permission, except permission to a group, then assigns three veterans to that group and solicits their attention to an article in progress. No blocks are issued. No significant flaws are in the wording or the evidence. The page is permitted for reading by all and writing by none. Occasionally, on the talk page, someone raises {{editprotected}}. The questions typically get an answer that could hav been found by reading three months of history. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l