http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=223050&s=&i=&t=Asimed_Ur...
"ERZURUM - The Turkish Association for Fight Against Unfounded Genocide Allegations (ASIMED) launched an e-mail campaign against Wikipedia urging it to remove the "Semi-Protection" lock over the article on Armenian allegations concerning the incidents of 1915."
- d.
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=223050&s=&i=&t=Asimed_Ur...
"ERZURUM - The Turkish Association for Fight Against Unfounded Genocide Allegations (ASIMED) launched an e-mail campaign against Wikipedia urging it to remove the "Semi-Protection" lock over the article on Armenian allegations concerning the incidents of 1915."
Good grief!
I realize that, having been partially suckered by their ploy, I'm not the best person to be expressing outrage here, but: what can they possibly be thinking? Do they even understand what "semi-protection" actually means? Surely they realize that a contentious issue like this one is much better served by limiting the editing activity to registered users, rather than letting in any random anonymous-IP drive-by editor...
On 30/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
"ERZURUM - The Turkish Association for Fight Against Unfounded Genocide Allegations (ASIMED) launched an e-mail campaign against Wikipedia urging it to remove the "Semi-Protection" lock over the article on Armenian allegations concerning the incidents of 1915."
I realize that, having been partially suckered by their ploy, I'm not the best person to be expressing outrage here, but: what can they possibly be thinking? Do they even understand what "semi-protection" actually means? Surely they realize that a contentious issue like this one is much better served by limiting the editing activity to registered users, rather than letting in any random anonymous-IP drive-by editor...
Suckered? If you went to the article to see if you had something useful to add to the discussion of article consensus, that's a win for us I think. We can honestly say "it has drawn editorial attention to the article in question, which helps do a better job of the process of collectively writing a neutral encyclopedia."
- d.
On 3/30/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=223050&s=&i=&t=Asimed_Ur...
"ERZURUM - The Turkish Association for Fight Against Unfounded Genocide Allegations (ASIMED) launched an e-mail campaign against Wikipedia urging it to remove the "Semi-Protection" lock over the article on Armenian allegations concerning the incidents of 1915."
Is it really that hard to register an account and chill for a few days?
Apparently. Of course, this isn't the first time when someone thinks Wikipedia policies are something they aren't...
-Soxred93
On Mar 30, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 3/30/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp? id=223050&s=&i=&t=Asimed_Urges_Wikipedia_To_Remove_
"ERZURUM - The Turkish Association for Fight Against Unfounded Genocide Allegations (ASIMED) launched an e-mail campaign against Wikipedia urging it to remove the "Semi-Protection" lock over the article on Armenian allegations concerning the incidents of 1915."
Is it really that hard to register an account and chill for a few days?
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 30/03/2008, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently. Of course, this isn't the first time when someone thinks Wikipedia policies are something they aren't...
What seems odd to me is that they know enough to say "semi-protected" without knowing what it means. The prefix should make it clear that this is a mild form of protection. Any rational person would then proceed to try and find out the details of how it works (which requires a total of one click)... Had they just missed the "semi" part and assumed the page was totally locked down, that would be one thing, but know it's semi and not caring is just irresponsible.