[WikiEN-l] Page protection vs. semi-protection

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 3/13/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > To my mind, a fully protected page is the absolute worst state a page
> > can be in.  A vandalized but editable page is even better, in my
> > opinion.
> >
> Do you see how a semi-protected page could be worse than a fully protected page?
>
> Or, rather, having significant numbers of semi-protected pages could
> be worse than significant numbers of fully protected pages?
>
Assuming all other things are equal, I think I'd say no (but as Geni
reminded me, I'm only thinking about articles here).

Now, granted, all other things might not be equal.  Maybe having
semi-protection encourages more and/or longer lasting protections.

> The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important
> to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different
> classes of users is a long-term bad thing.

As for a), whether a page is protected or semi-protected, a 1st time
editor can't touch it.

As for b), maybe I'm arguing semantics here, but "classes of users"
seems to me to imply that these classes are long lasting.  Telling
people they have to wait 4 days before they can edit a small fraction
of the most controversial articles, that doesn't really create
classes.

I dunno, I guess my base assumption is that any protection of articles
should be very short-lived and only affect a small percentage of
articles at any time.  Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer right there :).

Anthony