It seems that some admins are protecting the "Triumph of the Will" article to prevent vandalism, even though it is currently Today's FA and against our protection policy of high visible articles. I was even reverted on the page protection: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&...
Comments? ~~~~
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia wrote:
It seems that some admins are protecting the "Triumph of the Will" article to prevent vandalism, even though it is currently Today's FA and against our protection policy of high visible articles. I was even reverted on the page protection: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&...
Comments? ~~~~
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
That policy makes no sense. I agree that protection should be avoided if at all possible on visible articles but the policy is taken way too literally at times and there are times when protection of an FA is a good idea.
-Jtkiefer
Agreed. It may be a bad idea to do it all the time, but I'd rather that new readers didn't go on FAs and see pictures of penises
On 3/2/06, Jtkiefer jtkiefer@wordzen.net wrote:
Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia wrote:
It seems that some admins are protecting the "Triumph of the Will"
article
to prevent vandalism, even though it is currently Today's FA and against
our
protection policy of high visible articles. I was even reverted on the
page
protection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&...
Comments? ~~~~
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
That policy makes no sense. I agree that protection should be avoided if at all possible on visible articles but the policy is taken way too literally at times and there are times when protection of an FA is a good idea.
-Jtkiefer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:46:47 -0500, you wrote:
That policy makes no sense. I agree that protection should be avoided if at all possible on visible articles but the policy is taken way too literally at times and there are times when protection of an FA is a good idea.
Isn't this what semi-protection is for? I really don't see the problem with that. Guy (JzG)
On 3/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
That policy makes no sense. I agree that protection should be avoided if at all possible on visible articles but the policy is taken way too literally at times and there are times when protection of an FA is a good idea.
Isn't this what semi-protection is for? I really don't see the problem with that.
Semi-protection of a main-page FA is almost as bad - it stops newcomers being able to edit the first article they see. So either should only be used in cases of sustained high-level vandalism.
Steve
--- Jtkiefer jtkiefer@wordzen.net wrote:
Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia wrote:
It seems that some admins are protecting the "Triumph of the Will" article to prevent vandalism, even though it is currently Today's FA and against our protection policy of high visible articles. I was even reverted on the page protection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&...
Comments? ~~~~
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
That policy makes no sense. I agree that protection should be avoided if at all possible on visible articles but the policy is taken way too literally at times and there are times when protection of an FA is a good idea.
I agree. Way too many vandalisms from IPs and new users vs the *VERY* little to any improvement those user classes make to the article while it is a TFA. All the many reverts do is take time away from fighting other vandalism and pollute the history page with anon edit followed by revert times 50 to a 100 for any TFA. TFA is supposed to showcase our very best work, not a page whose only content for several minutes is I like farts.
We needn't hype the editability fact so much given that we get many edits, have so many editors, and that readers outnumber editors by at least 200 to 1. The vast, vast majority of people who now come to Wikipedia expect to see quality content not fart jokes. Because of that, vandalism is becoming increasingly less and less tolerable in my mind; even when it only is in the top edit for less than a minute given that one or more readers may have loaded that page in that time.
Ideally I would like to see the saving of *all* edits by anons and new users to be delayed until they are OKd by a trusted user (to be defined) or a clock runs out (default could be 5 minutes and admins could increase that time on a per article basis).
But enough is enough.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 3/3/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree. Way too many vandalisms from IPs and new users vs the *VERY* little to any improvement those user classes make to the article while it is a TFA. All the many reverts do is take time away from fighting other vandalism and pollute the history page with anon edit followed by revert times 50 to a 100 for any TFA. TFA is supposed to showcase our very best work, not a page whose only content for several minutes is 'I like farts'.
I don't think we expect to get much improvement to the front page FA from anons. We just want to prove that they can edit.
We needn't hype the editability fact so much given that we get many edits, have so many editors, and that readers outnumber editors by at least 200 to 1. The vast, vast majority of people
We don't need to encourage people to edit because we have 200 times as many readers as editors? I disagree.
come to Wikipedia expect to see quality content not fart jokes. Because of that, vandalism is becoming increasingly less and less tolerable in my mind; even when it only is in the top edit for less than a minute given that one or more readers may have loaded that page in that time.
However I agree with this, because...
Ideally I would like to see the saving of *all* edits by anons and new users to be delayed until they are OKd by a trusted user (to be defined) or a clock runs out (default could be 5 minutes and admins could increase that time on a per article basis).
...I totally agree with this. I suspect it would be somewhat tricky to implement, but yes, this would help a great deal with vandalism. I don't think it's "unfair" on anon users that their edits are delayed for a while, and I think it would have a deterrent effect on vandals as well. ("What? My fart joke isn't even going to get its 1 minute of fame?")
Steve
--- Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/3/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree. Way too many vandalisms from IPs and new users vs the *VERY* little to any
improvement
those user classes make to the article while it is a TFA. All the many reverts do is take time away from fighting other vandalism and pollute the history page with anon edit followed by
revert
times 50 to a 100 for any TFA. TFA is supposed to showcase our very best work, not a page
whose
only content for several minutes is 'I like farts'.
I don't think we expect to get much improvement to the front page FA from anons. We just want to prove that they can edit.
What? TFA is not a sandbox.
We don't need to encourage people to edit because we have 200 times as many readers as editors? I disagree.
Very few people create information yet we all consume it. That is a fact of life.
come to Wikipedia expect to see quality content not fart jokes. Because of that, vandalism is becoming increasingly less and less tolerable in my mind; even when it only is in the top edit for less than a minute given that one or more readers may have loaded that page in that time.
However I agree with this, because...
Ideally I would like to see the saving of *all* edits by anons and new users to be delayed
until
they are OKd by a trusted user (to be defined) or a clock runs out (default could be 5 minutes
and
admins could increase that time on a per article basis).
...I totally agree with this. I suspect it would be somewhat tricky to implement, but yes, this would help a great deal with vandalism. I don't think it's "unfair" on anon users that their edits are delayed for a while, and I think it would have a deterrent effect on vandals as well. ("What? My fart joke isn't even going to get its 1 minute of fame?")
There will be a minor undesirable side effect of denying anons and new users the instant gratification of having their valid fix or addition delayed. But that is greatly mitigated by the much, much longer time their edits will be viewable by all and the fact that getting rid of the delay is something that only takes a bit of time and effort on their part (becoming an editor in good standing ; should be auto-determined based on age of account and number of non-reverted edits).
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 3/3/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't think we expect to get much improvement to the front page FA from anons. We just want to prove that they can edit.
What? TFA is not a sandbox.
It kind of almost is. And it always has enough people watching it to clean up the mess. But yeah it's a pity that we can't actually delay anon edits.
We don't need to encourage people to edit because we have 200 times as many readers as editors? I disagree.
Very few people create information yet we all consume it. That is a fact of life.
I mean, I find the logic that the shortage of editors means we don't need more editors a bit strange.
There will be a minor undesirable side effect of denying anons and new users the instant gratification of having their valid fix or addition delayed. But that is greatly mitigated by
5 minutes would be nearly "instant". And it would be great if it was a per-page setting that could be tweaked, so 5 minutes for the main FA, 6 hours for less-watched but equally target pages like Abortion or something, and maybe even 0 by default?
the
much, much longer time their edits will be viewable by all and the fact that getting rid of the delay is something that only takes a bit of time and effort on their part (becoming an editor in good standing ; should be auto-determined based on age of account and number of non-reverted edits).
I would be happy for all logged in editors to be exempt, which would be in line with similar policies.
Steve
On 3/3/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree. Way too many vandalisms from IPs and new users vs the *VERY* little to any improvement those user classes make to the article while it is a TFA. All the many reverts do is take time away from fighting other vandalism and pollute the history page with anon edit followed by revert times 50 to a 100 for any TFA. TFA is supposed to showcase our very best work, not a page whose only content for several minutes is 'I like farts'.
I'd say we have quite enough editors now. Let's stop letting new people edit anything on Wikipedia, and soon it will be perfect.