FYI-- After some concerns were raised about the indefinite protection or semi-protection of some high-profile articles, I decided unprotect some that had been protected for a long time. (I also created a recent change list and requested the help of a few other editors to help me watch the pages. A list of pages I unprotected or set end-dates for is available at [[User:Fang Aili/sandbox2]].)
All articles listed below were unprotected by me around March 29. Here is a report on what has happened since. All re-semi-protected articles were protected in response to IP vandalism, unless otherwise specified.
==Countries and continents== *France - Indef semi-protected on April 1. *Mexico - Re-semi-protected, March 31. (expires April 14) *Iraq - Re-semi-protected, April 4. (expires April 14) *England - Re-semi-protected, April 3. (expires April 17) *Europe - Still unprotected. Target of much vandalism, but also constructive edits by IPs. *Africa - Re-SP'd April 2. Expires April 7. *Australia - Much anon vandalism. Re-SP'd on April 3, expires April 24. *People's Republic of China - Still unprotected. Some vandalism. (I kept page move protection.)
==People== *Ayn Rand - Still unprotected. Some anon vandalism. *Bill Cosby - Semi-protected again by myself after vandals claimed Cobsy was dead, expires April 16. *Benito Mussolini - Still unprotected. Some anon vandalism.
==Planets== *Earth - Still unprotected. Fairly heavy IP vandalism. *Sun - Re-SP'd on April 2, expires April 7. *Mars - Re-SP'd on April 5, expires May 17.
==Other== *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - This has gone through many edits lately, as can be expected. It was unprotected March 28, re-protected the next day, and unprotected March 31. *Black Death - A suprising target of much anon vandalism, semi-protected again by myself, expires April 12. *Buddhism - Still unprotected. Some IP vandalism. *Aztec - Still unprotected. Minor IP vandalism. *Baibars - Still unprotected. No vandalism. *Amish - Still unprotected. Minor IP vandalism. At least one instance of a constructive IP edit. *History of Croatia - Still unprotected. No edits since I unprotected it.
==Analysis== 1. Of this group, countries were most likely to be re-protected.
2. With some articles, it seems our choices are: 1)Constantly monitor, and revert often, or 2)Semi-protect and still monitor for (perhaps less frequent) vandalism from registered users. [[England]], for example, was still getting vandalized even while semi-protected.
3. We may just have to accept that some articles will be indefinitely semi-protected, or will go through cycles of one-week-unprotected, several-weeks-protected.
Take the information for what you will. I am not sure I accomplished anything other than reasserting what we already know. But it was an interesting experiment.
Erica User:Fang Aili
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:38:04 -0500, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
Take the information for what you will. I am not sure I accomplished anything other than reasserting what we already know. But it was an interesting experiment.
Yes, it was interesting. It's reinforced my view that timed protection is a good idea, in that we will effectively do this same study serially for new protected articles, and it shows that semiprotection is a very useful tool in helping to maintain a balance between editability and usefulness. Thank you for doing this, and doing the work monitoring the articles, and sharing the results.
Guy (JzG)
It's also pretty clear that the majority of articles can't exist with some form of protection. Most of them were vandalized when they were left unprotected.
Mgm
On 4/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:38:04 -0500, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
Take the information for what you will. I am not sure I accomplished anything other than reasserting what we already know. But it was an interesting experiment.
Yes, it was interesting. It's reinforced my view that timed protection is a good idea, in that we will effectively do this same study serially for new protected articles, and it shows that semiprotection is a very useful tool in helping to maintain a balance between editability and usefulness. Thank you for doing this, and doing the work monitoring the articles, and sharing the results.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 22:11:30 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It's also pretty clear that the majority of articles can't exist with some form of protection. Most of them were vandalized when they were left unprotected.
Assuming you mean without, then yes, it's a decent confirmation that the balance between protectionists and editists is being struck at roughly the right level.
Guy (JzG)
Oops, you're right. That was a typo. I meant without, of course. Mgm
On 4/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 22:11:30 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It's also pretty clear that the majority of articles can't exist with
some
form of protection. Most of them were vandalized when they were left unprotected.
Assuming you mean without, then yes, it's a decent confirmation that the balance between protectionists and editists is being struck at roughly the right level.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l