As someone who regularly polices RFP, I am pretty strict on what I semiprotect and what I don't. But I must say, that rigor aside, I very much like the idea of semiprotecting living people's articles as a matter of course. Accountability skyrockets when someone has to register for an account to edit.
k
On 5/23/06, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
"Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com writes:
Do we perhaps also need to create the subcategory [[Category:Living persons liable to sue]]?
Unfortunately in English law it is potentially actionable to call someone litigious. -- David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk david@election.demon.co.uk (home) dboothroyd@westminster.gov.uk (council) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/23/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
As someone who regularly polices RFP, I am pretty strict on what I semiprotect and what I don't. But I must say, that rigor aside, I very much like the idea of semiprotecting living people's articles as a matter of course. Accountability skyrockets when someone has to register for an account to edit.
Does interest in editing Wikipedia plummet when you have to wait 4 days to do it?
What proportion of Wikipedia is living people articles?
Steve
On 5/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
As someone who regularly polices RFP, I am pretty strict on what I semiprotect and what I don't. But I must say, that rigor aside, I very much like the idea of semiprotecting living people's articles as a matter of course. Accountability skyrockets when someone has to register for an account to edit.
Does interest in editing Wikipedia plummet when you have to wait 4 days to do it?
What proportion of Wikipedia is living people articles?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'll tell you when interest in editing Wikipedia really plummets: when its subject could sue you over potentially libelous content inserted by someone else.
k
On 5/23/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'll tell you when interest in editing Wikipedia really plummets: when its subject could sue you over potentially libelous content inserted by someone else.
That's been true throughout pretty much all of Wikipedia's history, and yet the interest keeps on rising.
Anthony
Steve Bennett-8 wrote:
Does interest in editing Wikipedia plummet when you have to wait 4 days to do it? Only if you're dead-set on editing stuff which has rightfully been semi-protected...
What proportion of Wikipedia is living people articles?
Actually quite small, I would imagine, judging from the endless screeching about "cruft" :-)
OTOH there is also an endless stream of "nn bio, delete" nominations at AFD so there must be some sort of balance.
HTH HAND
On 5/24/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett-8 wrote:
Does interest in editing Wikipedia plummet when you have to wait 4 days
to
do it?
Only if you're dead-set on editing stuff which has rightfully been semi-protected...
Eep, AGF, please! Someone comes along and wants to add some info on their basketball stars, and you're already accusing them of having an agenda? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
Also, what does "rightfully" mean in this context.
Steve
Katefan0 wrote:
As someone who regularly polices RFP, I am pretty strict on what I semiprotect and what I don't. But I must say, that rigor aside, I very much like the idea of semiprotecting living people's articles as a matter of course. Accountability skyrockets when someone has to register for an account to edit.
Only if the editor doesn't actually understand the system. If the guy who messed with the Siegenthaler article had logged in with a disposable account before he'd done it rather than making an "anonymous" edit that permanently recorded his IP address for all the world to see he'd have got away with it scott-free rather than losing his job.
On May 24, 2006, at 9:40 AM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
As someone who regularly polices RFP, I am pretty strict on what I semiprotect and what I don't. But I must say, that rigor aside, I very much like the idea of semiprotecting living people's articles as a matter of course. Accountability skyrockets when someone has to register for an account to edit.
Only if the editor doesn't actually understand the system. If the guy who messed with the Siegenthaler article had logged in with a disposable account before he'd done it rather than making an "anonymous" edit that permanently recorded his IP address for all the world to see he'd have got away with it scott-free rather than losing his job.
We still could have uncovered his IP address with CheckUser, no?
On 24/05/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 24, 2006, at 9:40 AM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
As someone who regularly polices RFP, I am pretty strict on what I semiprotect and what I don't. But I must say, that rigor aside, I very much like the idea of semiprotecting living people's articles as a matter of course. Accountability skyrockets when someone has to register for an account to edit.
Only if the editor doesn't actually understand the system. If the guy who messed with the Siegenthaler article had logged in with a disposable account before he'd done it rather than making an "anonymous" edit that permanently recorded his IP address for all the world to see he'd have got away with it scott-free rather than losing his job.
We still could have uncovered his IP address with CheckUser, no?
Only if he'd edited recently. IP-to-editor links are discarded after a period of time - [[m:CheckUser Policy]] says one week, but I vaguely recall this is the absolute minimum and in practice the information is often left for longer. It's pushing it to hope it would still be there three months later, though...
On 5/24/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Only if he'd edited recently. IP-to-editor links are discarded after a period of time - [[m:CheckUser Policy]] says one week, but I vaguely recall this is the absolute minimum and in practice the information is often left for longer. It's pushing it to hope it would still be there three months later, though...
If it works the way I think it does then records currently go back about a month.