Even if the restrictions are minor, any level of separation between anons and regular users does have social consequences: it's a barrier, if a permeable one, and it will effect how many people join wikipedia (and what types of people), how users treat outsiders, etc. Semiprotection is necessary, but we shouldn't pretend it's inconsequential. (Hey, maybe those consequences are /good/, like encouraging people to create accounts and become invested in the project. And maybe they're not.)
On 6/25/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, the more I consider the facts, the less convinced I am. The problem is in the interpretation of "anyone can edit". Does it mean "anyone who wants to edit, can", or does it mean "anyone at all can edit". Normally this wouldn't matter, but it's critical if we're attempting to measure "anyone-can-edit-ness" (ACEN).
Anyone can drive on the public roads. Of course you need a licence and need to know the rules of the road. It's just common sense, we don't need to fine-tune it.
The problem is that semi-protection lasts longer
than full protection, as a rule, so that in general this comparison is far from true.
What, they can't wait 4 days to edit an article that's a huge source of vandalism - yet they can still edit the other 99.999% of articles? Boohoo.
mboverload _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l