[WikiEN-l] How's our coverage of medications?

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You would think— But thats only true if the resistance is driven by a
>> risk analysis, it's not true for resistance driven by either a hard
>> philosophical objection (The "unwiki" position taken by many in the
>> discussions) or due to an attempt to thwart change in general. In
>> either of these cases you could demonstrate that it works great and
>> those opinions would not change. Moreover, the possibility that a test
>> may be successful and dispel fears is a reason to oppose testing for
>> opponents whom care about things other than success.
>
> But flagged revisions for currently protected pages is more wiki than
> protected pages...

But it's a gateway drug to flagging for everything: If we demonstrate
that people don't stop editing those articles, and that the flagged
version isn't constantly super stale... then only "unwiki" remains as
a major counter argument.  Can it drive consensus alone?

Not only that, but "making protection 'softer' would encourage people
to use it more — flagging may be more wiki, but not enough to offset
the enormous increases which are sure to happen" (look at semi: It's
used orders of magnitude more than full protection ever was)

These are both solid arguments (for a position I don't support...).