SV is right that the current policy on page protection
isn't great. Pages are often protected for a long time
without any progress on the actual conflict. For example
[[anti-American sentiment]] has been protected for nearly
two weeks without VV and GBWR making the slightest effort
to resolve their dispute, despite me trying to help. It's
very frustrating for everybody else. The current policy
just isn't conducive to conlict resolution.
SV's proposal is interesting but I think there are
drawbacks: quite substantial changes are required, admins
workload will go up ; there is no justification for the
assumption that admins can deal with edit conflicts better
than common Wikipedians
I'd like to make an alternative proposal for dealing with
page protection:
1) in case of an edit war the page in question is protected
as before. Then the following steps are taken:
2) the admin who protected the page makes a list (on the
talk page) of the editors involved in the edit conflict ;
3) the named editors each outline their view of the
disagreement (talk page) ;
4) the named editors (with the help of fellow Wikipedians
if this is helpful) try to hammer out a compromise ;
5) if no compromise can be found within a week, this is
taken as proof that they are unable to resolve their
conflict. Therefore the page is unprotected but the listed
editors are banned from editing the article in question for
a period of, say, a month. Editors that were not involved
in the edit conflict can edit the article and get a chance
to deal with the controversial points ;
6) Since this system could be abused by people who raise
spurious conflicts just to get other editors banned from an
article, there is need for a further step: if one of the
editors feels their opponent is acting in bad faith, they
can ask for a vote on this, and if there is a consensus
(say 3/4) then their ban is lifted.
pros:
=====
1) nobody wants to get banned from an article they are
interested in, therefore Wikipedians will try to avoid edit
wars ; willingness to compromise and to be civil will
increase ;
2) a more formal way of dealing with edit conflicts ;
3) no big changes required (software, new sysop roles
etc.) ;
4) Wikipedians who avoid edit wars don't get shut out of
protected articles for long periods ;
5) the workload of admins stays the same
cons:
=====
1) protection policy change
2) ??
I'll copy this to the PPP draft page.
pir
On Friday 23 July 2004 12:04,
wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "S. Vertigo" <sewev(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Protected page policy rethuk
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID:
<20040723051411.84168.qmail(a)web90005.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
...Wikipedia RC seems to be zipping by quite fast
lately. (Its already impossible to just scan RC as a
way to catch up; Im actually using my watchlist for
the first time...) But it seems that with the
controversial set, its time for a rethinking of the
protected page policy, and Ive written some basic
stuff here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_page/Draft]]
Basically, my idea calls for sort of dance steps to
how to deal with contested articles. Essentially,
allowing certain sysops to act according to formal
roles with respect to each contested article, and to
have those articles be protected in degrees, based on
what the situation calls for. Protection is
degree-less, but sysops can and should act responsibly
to continue developing articles in accordance with the
concerns of the partisans. Because any disputes about
who can act in each role are an abstract issue from
the article, they can be dealt with judiciously as a
separate dispute by moderates not interested in
getting mud thrown at them. With templates and
categories, this can be more quickly done.
Of course, this would mean that sysopdom does have
some responsibility and privelige for which they would
be more accountable, but this is weighed against the
need to have controversial articles not be such black
holes on Wikipedia.
--
+++ GMX DSL-Tarife 3 Monate gratis* +++ Nur bis 25.7.2004 +++
Bis 24.000 MB oder 300 Freistunden inkl.
http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl