On 3/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem. The problems are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts, and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in
that
article are inaccurate. Then of course there's the problem of protecting articles, though that one's probably arguable (now that semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where full protection is *ever* a good idea).
The argument is that since any form of protection is an unwanted state, it's in certain senses better when it bothers more people -- it motivates people to fix the underlying problems.
[....]
If this doesn't make sense I can try to do a better job of explaining.
No, that does make sense. Though the way I see it, especially since the advent of the three revert rule, page protection only makes sense when dealing with sockpuppets, and semi-protection is a good protection against that which still allows established editors.
And if page protection is only used in that way - in the face of a distributed sockpuppet attack, I really don't see how semi-protection hinders solving the underlying problems.
But I suppose this presumes that page protection is only used in this limited sense, which doesn't reflect how it is actually used in practice.
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?
Not particularly.
Or, rather, having significant numbers of semi-protected pages could
be worse than significant numbers of fully protected pages?
Let's try to quantify the problem here. There are currently over a million articles on Wikipedia. Of them 14 (or 0.0014%) are currently permanently protected, and 43 (or 0.0043%) are currently semi-protected. Of the semi-protected articles only two appear to be, for want of a better term, "permanently semi-protected", George W. Bush and Jew; in the case of those articles, the contributions by IP editors tend to consist almost exclusively of vandalism, which usually starts up minutes after unprotection. I can't see how we're facing any sort of crisis at this point.
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.
Given that 99.98% of Wikipedia articles are editable by first time editors, I'm not seeing the relevance. As for "different classes of users", we've always had them, and I can't imagine how we wouldn't have them going forward. There are admins, bureaucrats, stewards, developers, etc. As well, because of page move vandalism, IP and new accounts have fewer abilities than established accounts.
Wikipedia is a project which is attempting to create a great on-line encyclopedia. That is the goal. Creating an on-line democracy, or libertarian anarchy, is not the goal.
Jay.