In a message dated 12/15/2008 10:24:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, sarcasticidealist@gmail.com writes:
Moreover, this isn't a mosquito: OTRS gets e-mails every day from victims of defamation. >>
----------------------------------- That is not a valid counter-argument. A mosquito exists as well. So the mere fact that OTRS *gets* email, does not create an elephant out of a mosquito. It's still a mosquito.
When we have 100,000 BLPs and get one or two issues per month... that's a mosquito.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:00 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When we have 100,000 BLPs and get one or two issues per month... that's a mosquito.
Yeah thanks for making my day.... Maybe someone should once give you some stats of OTRS's quality queue... it's rather in the region of 1-2 issues per hour, at the very least.
Michael
I have come to the conclusion that a very large percentage of BLP's need to be semiprotected at the very least. I am still thinking through the best way to implement such a change, but the current situation is not acceptable.
Newyorkbrad
On 12/16/08, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:00 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When we have 100,000 BLPs and get one or two issues per month... that's a mosquito.
Yeah thanks for making my day.... Maybe someone should once give you some stats of OTRS's quality queue... it's rather in the region of 1-2 issues per hour, at the very least.
Michael
-- Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) < newyorkbrad@gmail.com> wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that a very large percentage of BLP's need to be semiprotected at the very least. I am still thinking through the best way to implement such a change, but the current situation is not acceptable.
Newyorkbrad
You know, maybe this isn't such a bad idea. It certainly would solve a lot of problems... Semi-protection would keep out the majority of drive-by vandalism. Thinking out loud (er, sort of) here, obviously there's a large conflict with the "anyone can edit" maxim, but this would undoubtedly cut our BLP complaints by a drastic amount. Jimbo would probably say no, but I'm sure the portion of the community that favors required registration would approve. Is this worth taking on-wiki, or do the philosophical implications need to be hashed out more?
- GlassCobra
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.comwrote:
You know, maybe this isn't such a bad idea. It certainly would solve a lot of problems... Semi-protection would keep out the majority of drive-by vandalism. Thinking out loud (er, sort of) here, obviously there's a large conflict with the "anyone can edit" maxim, but this would undoubtedly cut our BLP complaints by a drastic amount. Jimbo would probably say no, but I'm sure the portion of the community that favors required registration would approve. Is this worth taking on-wiki, or do the philosophical implications need to be hashed out more?
I agree, there's so many problems just with the "anyone can edit" principle. Personally, I'd only allow admins and only established users to be editing BLPs. Too often I see a BLP vandalised on a regular basis, and refused protection because "there's not enough vandalism". It makes me cringe when vandal-fighters are shot down on RFA - it's vandal fighters who, for the most part, often save us the embarrassment of having "He is also known to have had sexual intercourse with his daughter" or the like on some poor individual's article for a few days/weeks/months.
So yes, please propose it. There are no "philosophical implications" apart from those who believe ability to edit is more important than ruining someone's life.