Personally, I think the CVU and semi-protection are great. I can't
stand reverting vandalism (could anything be more tedious than
cleaning up after annoying teenagers?), but I hate to see articles
I've worked on vandalised too.
If the CVU get off on cleaning it up and actually do something about it,
If semi-protection stops vandalism happening in the first place, great!
On 2/3/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/3/06, The Cunctator
Wikipedia's still great, I love it, but
really. The Wikipedia Counter
Let's just strap on the jackboots and start humming Beethoven's 5th.
Silly, silly me, thinking the Wikipedia Militia was bad. They've even
got their own freaking logo! Which, if I'm not mistaken, is a gross
Sure but we tend not to worry about that as long as it stays within
wikimedia projects. Otherwise there are rather a lot of othr images
that need to go.
"Semi-protection" is also something
that bothers me no end. As does
the concept of needing to "semi-protect" talk pages.
Wikipedia doesn't need protection. It needs participation. It's not a
piece of china, folks.
Ummm are you going to sit there refreshing your talk page once a
second to catch all the vandalism at GWB?
Neither is it some kind of dystopian arcology
that needs paramilitary
posses threatening people around every corner.
<crazy old guy rant>There's TOO MUCH PROCESS going on in articles
these days. Too many damn boxes!</rant>
[[WP:CVU]] are hadly process heavy. More and better vandles require
better tactics to deal with them. Nothing stopping you doing RC patrol
the old fashioned way.