It's also pretty clear that the majority of articles can't exist with some
form of protection.
Most of them were vandalized when they were left unprotected.
Mgm
On 4/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:38:04 -0500, Erica <fangaili(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Take the information for what you will. I am not
sure I accomplished
anything other than reasserting what we already know. But it was an
interesting experiment.
Yes, it was interesting. It's reinforced my view that timed
protection is a good idea, in that we will effectively do this same
study serially for new protected articles, and it shows that
semiprotection is a very useful tool in helping to maintain a balance
between editability and usefulness. Thank you for doing this, and
doing the work monitoring the articles, and sharing the results.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l