- Delayed editing: Something that has been talked about and wanted for
years. This would give admins to the ability to soft-protect pages that are frequent targets of vandalism (such as [[George W. Bush]] on the English Wikipedia). Ideally this feature would automatically delay edits by anons and new users and post them, again automatically, after an amount of time that was set by an admin for that page (similar to setting IP/user name block time periods). This would give RC patrolers time to cancel vandalistic edits before they are posted for all to see. But last I heard this feature (so far) would require a great deal of manual effort by admins; one would need to set versions manually and I do not think the feature distinguishes between anons, new users or old users. I personally think that this feature should not go live until it is fully functional (esp since it is way too similar, as is, to the below feature). The point of this feature is to help avoid displaying vandalism.
Mmm, yes. This is exactly like the new Encarta proposal. Do people not realise how anti-Wiki delayed editing is? The *core* values, the ones that are constantly advertised for Wikipedia, is that "anyone can edit it" and "edits are displayed immediately".
Neil also mentioned that the policy can always be changed back, and that there is always the chance of forking the project. Forking would be the destruction of Wikipedia, since it would basically form two competing communities. As Neil said:
The virtue of the multi-version approach is that it allows both the
"pure-Wiki" and the "sifter" approaches at once, but without forking the project.
Exactly. That is, pure-Wiki would be compromised. People would view the stable versions *first* and then maybe look over the draft editable versions. That automatically changes Wikipedia's nature by a huge margin.
Ronline