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

geni geniice at gmail.com
Fri Feb 3 18:24:27 UTC 2006

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


More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list