[WikiEN-l] Autoconfirm proposal

[Laura K Fisher]

If only all legislation had a probationary period after which the unintended
consequences had to be evaluated.  Maybe there'd be less legislation.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> All of these proposals that change policies and requirements where the
> actual effect can't reliably be projected (i.e. what specifically will
> change with increasing the requirements for autoconfirmed, how many people
> who vandalize after being autoconfirmed now will simply wait a little
> longer
> or do a little more) ought to have a built in expiration clause. Run it for
> a month, or two months, and if the community doesn't ratify it as being
> useful then it stops on its own. Otherwise these things can be implemented,
> run without achieving a tangible benefit, and never be stopped because
> doing
> so requires a huge effort.
>
> Rollback rights come to mind. Whether granting it at all and doing it the
> way it is done has worked out at all or better than the alternatives is
> something no one has studied - the people who disagreed with it (many
> people) mostly ignore it, and its only newbies and admins in favor of the
> procedure who ever think about it. How about adding Twinkle as a gadget?
> For
> editors who "abused" twinkle, you could remove it and project their .js
> page. When it was added as a gadget, that ability (I assume) went away.
> What
> are the effects of that? If no one organizes a comprehensive review no one
> will ever know - and even if someone does, and there are significant
> downsides, changing it back requires an act of Congress. So changes like
> these should all be forced to undergo a probation period to give concrete
> verification of their supposedly positive effects.
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>