Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
Hi,
I was quite surprised to see today in the Wikipedia Signpost that the semi-protection policy had passed and I hadn't even heard a poll was conducted on it.
I think it's really important that everyone is notified in a much more organised manner about such important policy chances.
Now, the reason I'm writing here is because of the looming "stable versions" policy. I think this is a policy that contravenes the principles of Wikipedia, and I've raised this on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Stable_versions) It would be great if other people could comment on this policy.
Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started. The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature. Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
About a week ago, something quite signficant happened - anonymous users were no longer allowed to start new articles. I said back then that that wasn't such a major move, and it's isn't. However, let's not let that become a slippery slope for all sorts of new policies that seek to restrict the freedom, and by extension the success, of Wikipedia.
At the Romanian Wikipedia, we have some of the most liberal policies on blocking and vandalism. And, so far, there haven't been any major problems - no media reports, no huge glaring errors, etc.
Let's maintain Wikipedia's liberty!
One is often hard pressed to know what policy really is. Often it is nothing more than a few policy wonks agreeing to something on a page somewhere. As long as they attach the word "policy" and nobody objects they draw the conclusion that there is general approval. If you weren't aware that this was happening, too bad.
People obsessed with policy often tend to be very shortsighted, or they will draft policies to deal with obvious problems but without considering the effect of those policies on people who were never part of the problem. In other words policies designed to cope with a small minority are at the expense of the great majority.
Preventing anonymous users from writing new articles may have been fine as a short term solution, but we need to find better ways for long term solutions. There are too many ways around that short term solutions anyway. We do need to have versions of an article declared stable and documented, but not at the expense of preventing the wiki's natural growth.
Ec