On 3/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem. The problems are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts, and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in that article are inaccurate. Then of course there's the problem of protecting articles, though that one's probably arguable (now that semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where full protection is *ever* a good idea).
The argument is that since any form of protection is an unwanted state, it's in certain senses better when it bothers more people -- it motivates people to fix the underlying problems.
[....]
If this doesn't make sense I can try to do a better job of explaining.
No, that does make sense. Though the way I see it, especially since the advent of the three revert rule, page protection only makes sense when dealing with sockpuppets, and semi-protection is a good protection against that which still allows established editors.
And if page protection is only used in that way - in the face of a distributed sockpuppet attack, I really don't see how semi-protection hinders solving the underlying problems.
But I suppose this presumes that page protection is only used in this limited sense, which doesn't reflect how it is actually used in practice.
To my mind, a fully protected page is the absolute worst state a page can be in. A vandalized but editable page is even better, in my opinion.
Anthony
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem. The problems are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts, and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in that article are inaccurate. Then of course there's the problem of protecting articles, though that one's probably arguable (now that semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where full protection is *ever* a good idea).
The argument is that since any form of protection is an unwanted state, it's in certain senses better when it bothers more people -- it motivates people to fix the underlying problems.
[....]
If this doesn't make sense I can try to do a better job of explaining.
No, that does make sense. Though the way I see it, especially since the advent of the three revert rule, page protection only makes sense when dealing with sockpuppets, and semi-protection is a good protection against that which still allows established editors.
And if page protection is only used in that way - in the face of a distributed sockpuppet attack, I really don't see how semi-protection hinders solving the underlying problems.
But I suppose this presumes that page protection is only used in this limited sense, which doesn't reflect how it is actually used in practice.
To my mind, a fully protected page is the absolute worst state a page can be in. A vandalized but editable page is even better, in my opinion.
Do you see how a semi-protected page could be worse than a fully protected page?
Or, rather, having significant numbers of semi-protected pages could be worse than significant numbers of fully protected pages?
The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
On 3/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
To my mind, a fully protected page is the absolute worst state a page can be in. A vandalized but editable page is even better, in my opinion.
Do you see how a semi-protected page could be worse than a fully protected page?
Or, rather, having significant numbers of semi-protected pages could be worse than significant numbers of fully protected pages?
Assuming all other things are equal, I think I'd say no (but as Geni reminded me, I'm only thinking about articles here).
Now, granted, all other things might not be equal. Maybe having semi-protection encourages more and/or longer lasting protections.
The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
As for a), whether a page is protected or semi-protected, a 1st time editor can't touch it.
As for b), maybe I'm arguing semantics here, but "classes of users" seems to me to imply that these classes are long lasting. Telling people they have to wait 4 days before they can edit a small fraction of the most controversial articles, that doesn't really create classes.
I dunno, I guess my base assumption is that any protection of articles should be very short-lived and only affect a small percentage of articles at any time. Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer right there :).
Anthony
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:51 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
I guess we shouldn't have admins if we accept (b).
On 3/13/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:51 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
I guess we shouldn't have admins if we accept (b).
Right!
Or at least, we should all feel very guilty about it.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/13/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:51 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
I guess we shouldn't have admins if we accept (b).
Right!
Or at least, we should all feel very guilty about it.
Since you seem to be the chief Anarchist, shouldn't you resign your adminship immediately as an example? :)
On 3/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/13/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:51 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
I guess we shouldn't have admins if we accept (b).
Right!
Or at least, we should all feel very guilty about it.
Since you seem to be the chief Anarchist, shouldn't you resign your adminship immediately as an example? :)
Undermineing the system from within has a long history. On a more serious note the more admins we have who view themselves as little different to ordinary members the better.
-- geni
On 3/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/13/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:51 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
I guess we shouldn't have admins if we accept (b).
Right!
Or at least, we should all feel very guilty about it.
Since you seem to be the chief Anarchist, shouldn't you resign your adminship immediately as an example? :)
Actually, if you check my userpage, you'll note that I am *not* a member of the Anarchists for a Past, Present, and Future World of Goodness.
So don't tar me with that brush! APPFWG may believe in using giant robots to convert Australia into a series of human-scale chessboards, games played over and over by unwilling slaves, but I sure don't.
Seriously, I think that most of the powers reserved to admins should be more accessible to many more users and that all of the powers should be more easily attainable.
On 3/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem. The problems are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts, and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in
that
article are inaccurate. Then of course there's the problem of protecting articles, though that one's probably arguable (now that semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where full protection is *ever* a good idea).
The argument is that since any form of protection is an unwanted state, it's in certain senses better when it bothers more people -- it motivates people to fix the underlying problems.
[....]
If this doesn't make sense I can try to do a better job of explaining.
No, that does make sense. Though the way I see it, especially since the advent of the three revert rule, page protection only makes sense when dealing with sockpuppets, and semi-protection is a good protection against that which still allows established editors.
And if page protection is only used in that way - in the face of a distributed sockpuppet attack, I really don't see how semi-protection hinders solving the underlying problems.
But I suppose this presumes that page protection is only used in this limited sense, which doesn't reflect how it is actually used in practice.
To my mind, a fully protected page is the absolute worst state a page can be in. A vandalized but editable page is even better, in my opinion.
Do you see how a semi-protected page could be worse than a fully protected page?
Not particularly.
Or, rather, having significant numbers of semi-protected pages could
be worse than significant numbers of fully protected pages?
Let's try to quantify the problem here. There are currently over a million articles on Wikipedia. Of them 14 (or 0.0014%) are currently permanently protected, and 43 (or 0.0043%) are currently semi-protected. Of the semi-protected articles only two appear to be, for want of a better term, "permanently semi-protected", George W. Bush and Jew; in the case of those articles, the contributions by IP editors tend to consist almost exclusively of vandalism, which usually starts up minutes after unprotection. I can't see how we're facing any sort of crisis at this point.
The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important
to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
Given that 99.98% of Wikipedia articles are editable by first time editors, I'm not seeing the relevance. As for "different classes of users", we've always had them, and I can't imagine how we wouldn't have them going forward. There are admins, bureaucrats, stewards, developers, etc. As well, because of page move vandalism, IP and new accounts have fewer abilities than established accounts.
Wikipedia is a project which is attempting to create a great on-line encyclopedia. That is the goal. Creating an on-line democracy, or libertarian anarchy, is not the goal.
Jay.
On 3/15/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem. The problems are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts, and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in
that
article are inaccurate. Then of course there's the problem of protecting articles, though that one's probably arguable (now that semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where full protection is *ever* a good idea).
The argument is that since any form of protection is an unwanted state, it's in certain senses better when it bothers more people -- it motivates people to fix the underlying problems.
[....]
If this doesn't make sense I can try to do a better job of explaining.
No, that does make sense. Though the way I see it, especially since the advent of the three revert rule, page protection only makes sense when dealing with sockpuppets, and semi-protection is a good protection against that which still allows established editors.
And if page protection is only used in that way - in the face of a distributed sockpuppet attack, I really don't see how semi-protection hinders solving the underlying problems.
But I suppose this presumes that page protection is only used in this limited sense, which doesn't reflect how it is actually used in practice.
To my mind, a fully protected page is the absolute worst state a page can be in. A vandalized but editable page is even better, in my opinion.
Do you see how a semi-protected page could be worse than a fully protected page?
Not particularly.
Or, rather, having significant numbers of semi-protected pages could
be worse than significant numbers of fully protected pages?
Let's try to quantify the problem here. There are currently over a million articles on Wikipedia. Of them 14 (or 0.0014%) are currently permanently protected, and 43 (or 0.0043%) are currently semi-protected. Of the semi-protected articles only two appear to be, for want of a better term, "permanently semi-protected", George W. Bush and Jew; in the case of those articles, the contributions by IP editors tend to consist almost exclusively of vandalism, which usually starts up minutes after unprotection. I can't see how we're facing any sort of crisis at this point.
The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important
to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
Given that 99.98% of Wikipedia articles are editable by first time editors, I'm not seeing the relevance. As for "different classes of users", we've always had them, and I can't imagine how we wouldn't have them going forward. There are admins, bureaucrats, stewards, developers, etc. As well, because of page move vandalism, IP and new accounts have fewer abilities than established accounts.
We haven't always had them. Back in the UseMod days there was just about one class of user. Each year a few new layers of hierarchy and bureaucracy are added.
Wikipedia is a project which is attempting to create a great on-line encyclopedia. That is the goal. Creating an on-line democracy, or libertarian anarchy, is not the goal.
Right. But one might convincingly argue that certain architectural principles are central to the success of the project. One important principle should be that the only reason an article should get more difficult to improve over time is that it is approaching perfection.
It shouldn't become more difficult because editing would require engaging a thicket of non-human-understandable templates or dealing with a 100,000 word document, or satisfying anything other than objective criteria to make a change.
If Wikipedia articles get frozen in stone we lose in the long run.
Stuff like that.
It's not a coincidence that Wikipedia is a successful project and that Wikipedia has an open structure, process, and architecture.
On 3/15/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
It shouldn't become more difficult because editing would require engaging a thicket of non-human-understandable templates or dealing with a 100,000 word document, or satisfying anything other than objective criteria to make a change.
If Wikipedia articles get frozen in stone we lose in the long run.
The devil's advocate might ask, what changes need to be made to [[George W Bush]] that aren't getting made because it's all too much hard work?
In other words, the semi-protected articles probably *are* approaching perfection. In as much as GWB can ever be perfect.
Steve
On 3/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
It shouldn't become more difficult because editing would require engaging a thicket of non-human-understandable templates or dealing with a 100,000 word document, or satisfying anything other than objective criteria to make a change.
If Wikipedia articles get frozen in stone we lose in the long run.
The devil's advocate might ask, what changes need to be made to [[George W Bush]] that aren't getting made because it's all too much hard work?
In other words, the semi-protected articles probably *are* approaching perfection. In as much as GWB can ever be perfect.
Wouldn't be a very good devil's advocate. There's been millions of consequences of the Bush presidency, and millions to come. Until the corpus of George W. Bush-related entries covers all of them, the articles won't be perfect. As the gateway to that information, [[George W. Bush]] will constantly need to change.
Or shorter: W. still has two years to go in his presidency. An article about W. that stopped history at 2006 would be strangely incomplete.
Ok, we were arguing different things. I was saying that it's acceptable that an article like GWB become more diffficult to edit. You're saying that it's not acceptable that it become frozen.
Steve
On 3/15/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
It shouldn't become more difficult because editing would require engaging a thicket of non-human-understandable templates or dealing with a 100,000 word document, or satisfying anything other than objective criteria to make a change.
If Wikipedia articles get frozen in stone we lose in the long run.
The devil's advocate might ask, what changes need to be made to [[George W Bush]] that aren't getting made because it's all too much hard work?
In other words, the semi-protected articles probably *are* approaching perfection. In as much as GWB can ever be perfect.
Wouldn't be a very good devil's advocate. There's been millions of consequences of the Bush presidency, and millions to come. Until the corpus of George W. Bush-related entries covers all of them, the articles won't be perfect. As the gateway to that information, [[George W. Bush]] will constantly need to change.
Or shorter: W. still has two years to go in his presidency. An article about W. that stopped history at 2006 would be strangely incomplete. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The only reason an article should become more difficult to edit is because its content is inherently harder to improve, not because it's practically more difficult to edit.
That's one of the reasons I'm so strongly against agglomeration -- massive, multi-topic articles are much more difficult to edit than concise, single-idea articles, even though any given massive, multi-topic article might be as well written as any single-idea article.
On 3/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, we were arguing different things. I was saying that it's acceptable that an article like GWB become more diffficult to edit. You're saying that it's not acceptable that it become frozen.
On 3/15/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
It shouldn't become more difficult because editing would require engaging a thicket of non-human-understandable templates or dealing with a 100,000 word document, or satisfying anything other than objective criteria to make a change.
If Wikipedia articles get frozen in stone we lose in the long run.
The devil's advocate might ask, what changes need to be made to [[George W Bush]] that aren't getting made because it's all too much hard work?
In other words, the semi-protected articles probably *are* approaching perfection. In as much as GWB can ever be perfect.
Wouldn't be a very good devil's advocate. There's been millions of consequences of the Bush presidency, and millions to come. Until the corpus of George W. Bush-related entries covers all of them, the articles won't be perfect. As the gateway to that information, [[George W. Bush]] will constantly need to change.
Or shorter: W. still has two years to go in his presidency. An article about W. that stopped history at 2006 would be strangely incomplete. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem. The problems are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts, and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in that article are inaccurate. Then of course there's the problem of protecting articles, though that one's probably arguable (now that semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where full protection is *ever* a good idea).
The argument is that since any form of protection is an unwanted state, it's in certain senses better when it bothers more people -- it motivates people to fix the underlying problems.
[....]
If this doesn't make sense I can try to do a better job of explaining.
No, that does make sense. Though the way I see it, especially since the advent of the three revert rule, page protection only makes sense when dealing with sockpuppets, and semi-protection is a good protection against that which still allows established editors.
And if page protection is only used in that way - in the face of a distributed sockpuppet attack, I really don't see how semi-protection hinders solving the underlying problems.
But I suppose this presumes that page protection is only used in this limited sense, which doesn't reflect how it is actually used in practice.
Semi-protection is also used to stop banned editors with dynamic IPs from editing; some of them are quite persistent.
Jay.