Semi-protection seems to be a great success in many cases. I think that it should be extended, but carefully, in a couple of key ways.
1. It seems that some very high profile articles like [[George W. Bush]] are destined to be semi-protected all the time or nearly all the time. I support continued occassional experimention by anyone who wants to take the responsibility of guarding it, but it seems likely to me that we will keep such articles semi-protected almost continuously.
If that is true, then the template at the time is misleading and scary and distracting to readers. I propose that we eliminate the requirement that semi-protected articles have to announce themselves as such to the general public. They can be categorized as necessary, of course, so that editors who take an interest in making sure things are not excessively semi-protected can do so, but there seems to me to be little benefit in announcing it to the entire world in such a confusing fashion.
2. A great many minor bios of slightly well known but controversial individuals are subject to POV pushing trolling, including vandalism, and it seems likely that in such cases, not enough people have these on their personal watchlists to police them as well as we would like. Semi-protection would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often.
------------
The basic concept here is that semi-protection has proven to be a valuable tool, with very broad community support, which gives good editors more time to deal with serious issues because there is less random vandalism. Because the threshold to editing is still quite low for anyone who seriously wants to join the dialogue in an adult, NPOV, responsible manner, I do not find any reason to hold back on some extended use of it.
Be glad, if my proposal worries you, that I am not proposing that we automatically semi-protect all living bios. :)
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Semi-protection seems to be a great success in many cases. I think that it should be extended, but carefully, in a couple of key ways.
- It seems that some very high profile articles like [[George W.
Bush]] are destined to be semi-protected all the time or nearly all the time. I support continued occassional experimention by anyone who wants to take the responsibility of guarding it, but it seems likely to me that we will keep such articles semi-protected almost continuously.
If that is true, then the template at the time is misleading and scary and distracting to readers. I propose that we eliminate the requirement that semi-protected articles have to announce themselves as such to the general public. They can be categorized as necessary, of course, so that editors who take an interest in making sure things are not excessively semi-protected can do so, but there seems to me to be little benefit in announcing it to the entire world in such a confusing fashion.
........
I have to disagree with you here. Wikipedia is famous as the Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". If a random anon sees a page and tries to edit it, and cannot (while the main page still proclaims how everyone can edit), they are going to be dreadfully confused- lord knows enough are confused by the basic idea without adding on a second level of possible confusion. Perhaps two templates: the scary one for temporary semiprotection, and another, more discreet one for the more permanent ones?
~maru
On May 19, 2006, at 8:13 PM, maru dubshinki wrote:
I have to disagree with you here. Wikipedia is famous as the Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". If a random anon sees a page and tries to edit it, and cannot (while the main page still proclaims how everyone can edit), they are going to be dreadfully confused- lord knows enough are confused by the basic idea without adding on a second level of possible confusion. Perhaps two templates: the scary one for temporary semiprotection, and another, more discreet one for the more permanent ones?
I, among others, have tried that on [[George W. Bush]], but it wasn't successful then. Things can change, however.
I have to disagree with you here. Wikipedia is famous as the Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". If a random anon sees a page and tries to edit it, and cannot (while the main page still proclaims how everyone can edit), they are going to be dreadfully confused- lord knows enough are confused by the basic idea without adding on a second level of possible confusion. Perhaps two templates: the scary one for temporary semiprotection, and another, more discreet one for the more permanent ones?
Given how many web sites require registration these days, I don't feel there's a conflict between saying "anyone can edit" but you have to be registered to edit to certain articles. It's not like we're saying that only certain registered can edit, we would just be saying to you have to register to edit.
Sue Anne
The only thing that gives me pause about completely removing the templates is that they are useful for referring very new users to where they can ask that an article be unprotected. Without that pointer, I doubt most very new users would know such a thing as RFP exists.
k
On 5/20/06, Sue Anne Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
I have to disagree with you here. Wikipedia is famous as the Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". If a random anon sees a page and tries to edit it, and cannot (while the main page still proclaims how everyone can edit), they are going to be dreadfully confused- lord knows enough are confused by the basic idea without adding on a second level of possible confusion. Perhaps two templates: the scary one for temporary semiprotection, and another, more discreet one for the more permanent ones?
Given how many web sites require registration these days, I don't feel there's a conflict between saying "anyone can edit" but you have to be registered to edit to certain articles. It's not like we're saying that only certain registered can edit, we would just be saying to you have to register to edit.
Sue Anne _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/20/06, Sue Anne Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
Given how many web sites require registration these days, I don't feel there's a conflict between saying "anyone can edit" but you have to be registered to edit to certain articles. It's not like we're saying that only certain registered can edit, we would just be saying to you have to register to edit.
Sue Anne
Semi-protection doesn't block just anons- it also blocks new users. And having to wait four days really kills the whole wikiwiki thing.
~maru
On 5/21/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Semi-protection doesn't block just anons- it also blocks new users. And having to wait four days really kills the whole wikiwiki thing.
We should try and create the image that if Wikipedia is like a vast museum where anyone can write anything on the walls, that they should avoid the temptation to write next to the entrances - that's where everyone gathers, and it's just too busy. Instead, they should find themselves a quiet corner to themselves...
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/21/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Semi-protection doesn't block just anons- it also blocks new users. And having to wait four days really kills the whole wikiwiki thing.
We should try and create the image that if Wikipedia is like a vast museum where anyone can write anything on the walls, that they should avoid the temptation to write next to the entrances - that's where everyone gathers, and it's just too busy. Instead, they should find themselves a quiet corner to themselves...
I used to find a quiet corner where I could sit down in a cramped solitude and write "Magnus frater te spectat" on the wall.
Pete, not sure what this says about him, but still feeling a cut above some of the other contributors
maru dubshinki wrote:
On 5/20/06, Sue Anne Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
Given how many web sites require registration these days, I don't feel there's a conflict between saying "anyone can edit" but you have to be registered to edit to certain articles. It's not like we're saying that only certain registered can edit, we would just be saying to you have to register to edit.
Sue Anne
Semi-protection doesn't block just anons- it also blocks new users. And having to wait four days really kills the whole wikiwiki thing.
And in some cases, the whole wikiwiki thing is more trouble that it is worth, by rather a long shot.
--Jimbo
On 5/20/06, Sue Anne Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
Given how many web sites require registration these days, I don't feel there's a conflict between saying "anyone can edit" but you have to be registered to edit to certain articles. It's not like we're saying that only certain registered can edit, we would just be saying to you have to register to edit.
Sue Anne
It's slightly more than that. It's saying you have to register and then wait a few days before you can edit.
As long as it's kept to only the most problematic articles, though, the only argument I have against it would be a slippery-slope one.
Anthony
maru dubshinki wrote:
I have to disagree with you here. Wikipedia is famous as the Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". If a random anon sees a page and tries to edit it, and cannot (while the main page still proclaims how everyone can edit), they are going to be dreadfully confused- lord knows enough are confused by the basic idea without adding on a second level of possible confusion. Perhaps two templates: the scary one for temporary semiprotection, and another, more discreet one for the more permanent ones?
I would support something like that, or better yet, perhaps having the default for semi-protection be that the 'edit this page' tab is still there and active, but when you click it and you can't edit, you get a nice explanation there that yes, anyone can edit, but that for this particular page, you can't edit it at this moment. In this way, we only bother telling people who are interested in editing, without having a strange message for people who only want to read.
On 5/21/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
maru dubshinki wrote:
I have to disagree with you here. Wikipedia is famous as the Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". If a random anon sees a page and tries to edit it, and cannot (while the main page still proclaims how everyone can edit), they are going to be dreadfully confused- lord knows enough are confused by the basic idea without adding on a second level of possible confusion. Perhaps two templates: the scary one for temporary semiprotection, and another, more discreet one for the more permanent ones?
I would support something like that, or better yet, perhaps having the default for semi-protection be that the 'edit this page' tab is still there and active, but when you click it and you can't edit, you get a nice explanation there that yes, anyone can edit, but that for this particular page, you can't edit it at this moment. In this way, we only bother telling people who are interested in editing, without having a strange message for people who only want to read.
The only thing I'd be concerned about is making sure that this is implemented in a way which still allows for easy access to the wiki source (without going through Special:Export). Just an implementation issue, but IMO an important one.
Anthony
View Source could be moved to a permenant tab for all pages if this type of change were going to go through. xaosflux ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection policy
On 5/21/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
maru dubshinki wrote:
I have to disagree with you here. Wikipedia is famous as the Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". If a random anon sees a page and tries to edit it, and cannot (while the main page still proclaims how everyone can edit), they are going to be dreadfully confused- lord knows enough are confused by the basic idea without adding on a second level of possible confusion. Perhaps two templates: the scary one for temporary semiprotection, and another, more discreet one for the more permanent ones?
I would support something like that, or better yet, perhaps having the default for semi-protection be that the 'edit this page' tab is still there and active, but when you click it and you can't edit, you get a nice explanation there that yes, anyone can edit, but that for this particular page, you can't edit it at this moment. In this way, we only bother telling people who are interested in editing, without having a strange message for people who only want to read.
The only thing I'd be concerned about is making sure that this is implemented in a way which still allows for easy access to the wiki source (without going through Special:Export). Just an implementation issue, but IMO an important one.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would support something like that, or better yet, perhaps having the default for semi-protection be that the 'edit this page' tab is still there and active, but when you click it and you can't edit, you get a nice explanation there that yes, anyone can edit, but that for this particular page, you can't edit it at this moment.
For the avoidance of doubt, this would be in the form of boilerplate text at the top of the usual "display source" mode, right, so the wikitext would be visible like normal?
Makes good sense to me, so long as we provide adequate explanation of why they can't edit this page at this time, and give them some way of determining when the limitation will lift for them.
On 5/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Semi-protection seems to be a great success in many cases. I think that it should be extended, but carefully, in a couple of key ways.
- It seems that some very high profile articles like [[George W.
Bush]] are destined to be semi-protected all the time or nearly all the time. I support continued occassional experimention by anyone who wants to take the responsibility of guarding it, but it seems likely to me that we will keep such articles semi-protected almost continuously.
Well, I'm not sure if it will still be necessary after Mr. Bush leaves office. I think the semi-protection status should be re-evaluated by 2008 or 2009. The template explaining the status can go on the talk page in the meantime.
I can think of no case where we'll need semi-protection _permanently_. Just for a very long time, which can mean several years in extreme cases -- pending better technical solutions, of course.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Well, I'm not sure if it will still be necessary after Mr. Bush leaves office. I think the semi-protection status should be re-evaluated by 2008 or 2009. The template explaining the status can go on the talk page in the meantime.
Yes! I suspect that "the current US president" will almost always be the most edited article in English Wikipedia.
I can think of no case where we'll need semi-protection _permanently_. Just for a very long time, which can mean several years in extreme cases -- pending better technical solutions, of course.
That is probably right. Yes.
On 5/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If that is true, then the template at the time is misleading and scary and distracting to readers. I propose that we eliminate the requirement that semi-protected articles have to announce themselves as such to the general public. They can be categorized as necessary, of course, so that editors who take an interest in making sure things are not excessively semi-protected can do so, but there seems to me to be little benefit in announcing it to the entire world in such a confusing fashion.
If the semi-prot banner is removed for pages like GWB, I suggest we increase the friendliness of a user who does try and edit it. We do want new users, after all. Something like "Hi! Bet you thought Wikipedia was the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, right? Well, it is...but articles like this one are so popular that we've had to restrict it. On the other hand, there are over a million articles that need your help. Click here to find out which..."
Or something.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
If the semi-prot banner is removed for pages like GWB, I suggest we increase the friendliness of a user who does try and edit it. We do want new users, after all. Something like "Hi! Bet you thought Wikipedia was the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, right? Well, it is...but articles like this one are so popular that we've had to restrict it. On the other hand, there are over a million articles that need your help. Click here to find out which..."
Or something.
Yeah, I am liking this idea. Essentially the idea here it to move the notification from the page where you read to the page where you have attempted to edit but can't. In this way, when someone tries to edit, they get a friendly explanation of how to join the community. But if they are just trying to read, they don't have to see a notice that is probably fairly useless and bewildering to them.
By the way, just to let everyone know, many many reporters I talk to believe that we have permanently locked the George W. Bush entry from editing. The beleive this because of various bad reporting in the past, but also because a glance at the page to someone who knows nothing about Wikipedia leads them to think the page is locked.
--Jimbo
On 5/21/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Yeah, I am liking this idea. Essentially the idea here it to move the notification from the page where you read to the page where you have attempted to edit but can't. In this way, when someone tries to edit, they get a friendly explanation of how to join the community. But if they are just trying to read, they don't have to see a notice that is probably fairly useless and bewildering to them.
It's even more confusing now that I see there's a phrase about "or to stop banned editors from editing". Is this such a common situation that it's worth mentioning? People there to read about GWB really don't need to know about the effect that a few recidivist prats occasionally have on our community...
Steve
G'day Steve,
On 5/21/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Yeah, I am liking this idea. Essentially the idea here it to move the notification from the page where you read to the page where you have attempted to edit but can't. In this way, when someone tries to edit, they get a friendly explanation of how to join the community. But if they are just trying to read, they don't have to see a notice that is probably fairly useless and bewildering to them.
It's even more confusing now that I see there's a phrase about "or to stop banned editors from editing". Is this such a common situation that it's worth mentioning? People there to read about GWB really don't need to know about the effect that a few recidivist prats occasionally have on our community...
Indeed. There's a suggestion W3C made about ... oooh ... nine years ago: "don't mention the mechanics". In practical terms, it means two things:
a) Your readers don't care how things work, just that they work. Don't give someone an explanation of how HTTP works when all they want to do is follow a link to look at Pokémon screenshots.
b) Don't assume that your readers will follow certain procedures to read your website. Don't say "click this anchor reference" when you could just as easily say "follow this link". If you assumed all your readers were Lynx users, and wrote "make this the active link, then press the right arrow on your keyboard", you'd confuse the heck out of anyone using Internet Explorer.
I think we need to be conscious of something like that on Wikipedia. For example, in those damned {{test}} templates, people keep re-inserting the words "or reverted" in the bog-standard "your test worked, and has been removed". Why do editors making tests care about the Wikipedia keyword "revert"? The template exists to reassure testers that their changes did no lasting damage, and to invite them to kindly stop making them, please.
Likewise, why should a person trying to read about Lyndon LaRouche[0] need to know that that scurrilous bastard Adam Carr used his influence with the Cabal to get the LaRouchites banned from editing LaRouche articles[1]?
Our love for making new rules for each other to follow displays itself in peculiar ways. Not only do we fill our Wikipedia lives with unnecessary procedure, but we then go on to *boast* about it to completely uninterested editors. "Look," we seem to be saying, "on George W. Bush we have a mechanism to keep banned users from editing! Isn't that great? Click this anchor reference to read about the policies we followed when we banned his arse! How would you like to stop studying for your high school essay and start reading about ArbCom? If you want, you can click this other anchor reference. Whee!"
There's a region between "being transparent" and "confusing the heck out of our readers because we're so fond of little pastel boxes", and it's a region we really need to be inhabiting.
[0] I've really got to stop using this fellow in all my examples. Fortunately, nobody actually reads what I write, so probably nobody's noticed the pattern yet.
[1] Hi, Peter! You're in good company!
On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
There's a region between "being transparent" and "confusing the heck out of our readers because we're so fond of little pastel boxes", and it's a region we really need to be inhabiting.
However our little pastel boxes can have the effect of makeing readers feel confident that wikipedia has ways to protect itself. It tells them that if there is trouble we can act. See [[Talk:Louis_Braille#sprotect]].
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Semi-protection seems to be a great success in many cases. I think that it should be extended, but carefully, in a couple of key ways.
- It seems that some very high profile articles like [[George W.
Bush]] are destined to be semi-protected all the time or nearly all the time. I support continued occassional experimention by anyone who wants to take the responsibility of guarding it, but it seems likely to me that we will keep such articles semi-protected almost continuously.
If that is true, then the template at the time is misleading and scary and distracting to readers. I propose that we eliminate the requirement that semi-protected articles have to announce themselves as such to the general public. They can be categorized as necessary, of course, so that editors who take an interest in making sure things are not excessively semi-protected can do so, but there seems to me to be little benefit in announcing it to the entire world in such a confusing fashion.
If the template is distracting, it should be replaced by a less distracting template, not removed entirely.
Nicholas Carr's criticism, while hyperbolic, is more right than wrong. Hiding information from users is not good.
The Cunctator wrote:
Nicholas Carr's criticism, while hyperbolic, is more right than wrong.
Actually, I think it is completely wrong. It completely misapprehends what is being discussed here.
Hiding information from users is not good.
Right, but no one is proposing to hide information, merely to present the most useful information at the most useful time. The template plastered at the top of the article has been a convenient approach because we were able to do it ourselves, without asking Brion to change anything.
What we want to do is to be as welcoming of diverse participation as possible, while at the same time controlling for vandalism. As we learn and think, we find better ways to do this.
First, we forever had article protection and bans. These are valuable tools, but we don't like article protection because it keeps people from editing *at all*. And because it keeps people from editing *at all* we have to be very very sparing with the use.
So, we thought about it long and hard, had a big discussion and a vote, and decided to *soften* article protection. With semi-protection. This has, in general, been a great success. It is a softer tool, so it can be used a bit more broadly. More people can edit more articles more often, and less drive by vandalism results. So far, so good.
Now, we are thinking again: how can we extend this? How can we be more welcoming to editing?
Well, one thing we know is that the big scary message at the top of articles discourages people from participation. It makes it seem like we have locked articles when we have not locked articles.
So the idea is to make the user interface better, to give people the information they need and want, when they need and want it, rather than thrusting on them something that they find confusing and misleading.
Hence, the proposal: don't do the notification with a template, change the UI so that people are more encouraged to join the project and start editing...
As with the softening of protection -> semi-protection, the concept here is to encourage more people to edit, while controlling for problems when they need to be controlled.
Calling this sort of thoughtful tweak to policy "the death of Wikipedia" is more than hyberbolic, it is just factually wrong.
--Jimbo
On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Nicholas Carr's criticism, while hyperbolic, is more right than wrong.
Actually, I think it is completely wrong. It completely misapprehends what is being discussed here.
Hiding information from users is not good.
Right, but no one is proposing to hide information, merely to present the most useful information at the most useful time. The template plastered at the top of the article has been a convenient approach because we were able to do it ourselves, without asking Brion to change anything.
What we want to do is to be as welcoming of diverse participation as possible, while at the same time controlling for vandalism. As we learn and think, we find better ways to do this.
First, we forever had article protection and bans. These are valuable tools, but we don't like article protection because it keeps people from editing *at all*. And because it keeps people from editing *at all* we have to be very very sparing with the use.
So, we thought about it long and hard, had a big discussion and a vote, and decided to *soften* article protection. With semi-protection. This has, in general, been a great success. It is a softer tool, so it can be used a bit more broadly. More people can edit more articles more often, and less drive by vandalism results. So far, so good.
Now, we are thinking again: how can we extend this? How can we be more welcoming to editing?
Well, one thing we know is that the big scary message at the top of articles discourages people from participation. It makes it seem like we have locked articles when we have not locked articles.
So the idea is to make the user interface better, to give people the information they need and want, when they need and want it, rather than thrusting on them something that they find confusing and misleading.
Hence, the proposal: don't do the notification with a template, change the UI so that people are more encouraged to join the project and start editing...
As with the softening of protection -> semi-protection, the concept here is to encourage more people to edit, while controlling for problems when they need to be controlled.
Calling this sort of thoughtful tweak to policy "the death of Wikipedia" is more than hyberbolic, it is just factually wrong.
Your language is strikingly emotional.
You describe the actions you support as: "thoughtful" "tweak" "softening" "need and want" "more welcoming" "soften" "softer" "bit more" "great success" "better ways" "thought long and hard" "most useful"
The alternatives and alternative viewpoints are presented as: "factually wrong" "confusing and misleading" "plastered" "big scary" "discourages"
It would be interesting to try to edit down your argument into something that was not so transparently biased. I'm not sure what would be left. But it would be a start for having an honest discussion about this, rather than an exercise in emotional pleading.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Semi-protection seems to be a great success in many cases. I think that it should be extended, but carefully, in a couple of key ways.
- It seems that some very high profile articles like [[George W.
Bush]] are destined to be semi-protected all the time or nearly all the time. I support continued occassional experimention by anyone who wants to take the responsibility of guarding it, but it seems likely to me that we will keep such articles semi-protected almost continuously.
If that is true, then the template at the time is misleading and scary and distracting to readers. I propose that we eliminate the requirement that semi-protected articles have to announce themselves as such to the general public. They can be categorized as necessary, of course, so that editors who take an interest in making sure things are not excessively semi-protected can do so, but there seems to me to be little benefit in announcing it to the entire world in such a confusing fashion.
If the template is distracting, it should be replaced by a less distracting template, not removed entirely.
I think it doesn't make sense to have it at the top, because it unnecessarily forces people who only want to read to take notice of things specific to editing.
In other cases where templates are put at the top, they're of relevance to people who are there as pure readers---for example, if an article doesn't cite its sources, or needs cleanup, or is of disputed neutrality, these are things relevant both to editors, who should fix them, but also to readers, who should be aware of the problem and take it into account when reading/interpreting the article. Semi-protection, by contrast, is of basically no interest to someone who just wants to read the article.
-Mark