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