On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You would think— But thats only true if the resistance is driven by a risk analysis, it's not true for resistance driven by either a hard philosophical objection (The "unwiki" position taken by many in the discussions) or due to an attempt to thwart change in general. In either of these cases you could demonstrate that it works great and those opinions would not change. Moreover, the possibility that a test may be successful and dispel fears is a reason to oppose testing for opponents whom care about things other than success.
But flagged revisions for currently protected pages is more wiki than protected pages...
But it's a gateway drug to flagging for everything: If we demonstrate that people don't stop editing those articles, and that the flagged version isn't constantly super stale... then only "unwiki" remains as a major counter argument. Can it drive consensus alone?
Not only that, but "making protection 'softer' would encourage people to use it more — flagging may be more wiki, but not enough to offset the enormous increases which are sure to happen" (look at semi: It's used orders of magnitude more than full protection ever was)
These are both solid arguments (for a position I don't support...).