On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Alex Sawczynec <glasscobra15(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
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.
--
Alex
(User:Majorly)