[WikiEN-l] Semiprotection and [[George W. Bush]] (was The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?)

[geni]

On 2/3/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> >Although vandalism has been slashed by semi-protection on that
> >article, non-vandalism edits also seem to be down by about 60%.  Does
> >that mean that semi-protection is wrong for George W. Bush?  I think
> >the jury is still out, but it appears that there is considerable
> >collateral damage associated with semi-protection.
>
>
> As examples of bad cases making bad rules, [[George W. Bush]] is the
> winner. It is *the* most edited article on en.wikipedia, by what? 5:1
> over the next one? It pretty clearly has *too many* editors for the
> live version ever to be a usable encyclopaedia article.
>
> Remember that *most articles are not controversial*. And that Kim
> Bruning and Gmaxwell's data indicates there are only a couple of
> hundred articles out of 900,000 that have more than a hundred editors.
> Kim's idea that we should just declare those couple of hundred
> articles prima facie pathological until proven otherwise strikes me as
> an *excellent* one.
>
> Saying anything about the value of semiprotection based on such
> articles only really applies to such articles. And semiprotection
> should be thought of as an extreme measure, but [[George W. Bush]] is
> a pathological article.
>
>
> - d.

Problem is we can't predict where we are going to get hit next. Did
you know that Louis Braille was going to get hit on the 4th of January

--
geni