What's the purpose of letting non-autoconfirmed accounts edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy? (other than causing work for others to revert the 97% crap and making noise on watchlists)
Why can't we simply semi-protect that? (Or do we need yet another policy for doing so?)
Or is this a wiki-religious thing?
Puzzled,
--Ligulem
Generally speaking we only need to protect pages that attract a lot of vandalism. What edits are these anons making? Are they trying to alter the policy or are they trying to fix spelling or something? Only the first issue needs protection.
Mgm
On 10/9/06, Ligulem ligulem@pobox.com wrote:
What's the purpose of letting non-autoconfirmed accounts edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy? (other than causing work for others to revert the 97% crap and making noise on watchlists)
Why can't we simply semi-protect that? (Or do we need yet another policy for doing so?)
Or is this a wiki-religious thing?
Puzzled,
--Ligulem
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9 Oct 2006, at 10:13, Ligulem wrote:
What's the purpose of letting non-autoconfirmed accounts edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy? (other than causing work for others to revert the 97% crap and making noise on watchlists)
Why can't we simply semi-protect that? (Or do we need yet another policy for doing so?)
Or is this a wiki-religious thing?
Puzzled,
--Ligulem
An Admin who asks when he doesn't know. So there is hope after all :-)
--- Ligulem ligulem@pobox.com wrote:
What's the purpose of letting non-autoconfirmed accounts edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy?
(other than causing work for others to revert the 97% crap and making noise on watchlists)
Why can't we simply semi-protect that? (Or do we need yet
Anons should not be editing policy. As you point out, it contributes little (nothing that couldn't be done with a throw-away account) and just wastes admin time. And may even lead to the frustration that has been voiced on this list by admins quitting wiki. Utterly pointless.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Cheney Shill wrote:
Anons should not be editing policy. As you point out, it contributes little (nothing that couldn't be done with a throw-away account) and just wastes admin time. And may even lead to the frustration that has been voiced on this list by admins quitting wiki. Utterly pointless.
I see it as pointless too, but sure not as much that someone should construe a wiki-quitting reason out of this.
It's just a waste of time to watch and revert these anon-policy changes. Yet another reason to remove these pages from one's own watchlist (another form of IAR ;-).
It serves more as a honey-pot for vandals, with ensuing potential collateral damage caused by IP blocks.
But it's probably not that important. I was just a bit astonished to see that we we cannot semi-protect the policy about semi-protection ;-)
--Ligulem
Ligulem wrote:
What's the purpose of letting non-autoconfirmed accounts edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy? (other than causing work for others to revert the 97% crap and making noise on watchlists)
Why can't we simply semi-protect that? (Or do we need yet another policy for doing so?)
Why shouldn't they be allowed to edit it? The page is a wiki.
As for the 97% crap, what else do you expect? It's a policy page.
Ec