[WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.

[Carcharoth]

Maybe the ideas aren't good enough? :-)

Carcharoth

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:04 PM, FT2<ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have had an idea how we could help resolve POV and sourcing wars, that
> would fit very well with Wikipedia philosophy. I might dust it off some
> time. The mood in the community is such that few proposals are welcomed by
> sufficient users to get accepted, and at the same time the problems persist
> and are critiqued.
>
> Anyone else notice that?
>
>
> FT2
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Jonathan Hall <sinewave at silentflame.com>wrote:
>
>> OK - so I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong)
>> is:
>> We should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or similar) to
>> edit a BLP that has been the subject of an edit war. The page would be
>> protected from editing by other (non-sysop) users. This would form an
>> alternative to or replacement for page protection, and would hopefully
>> lead to more editing than page protection.
>> We should also allow users to create draft articles in their userspace
>> that are (by default) protected from editing by other non-sysops.
>>
>> I share FT2's concerns about the need to avoid creating a BLP cabal
>> with the first point, and I also have concerns about the second point
>> - it could lead to POV forks and encourage people to hide an imperfect
>> article in their userspace rather than it being more visible and
>> publically editable, which will lead to faster improvement. It could
>> also lead to greater feelings of article ownership - if you grew an
>> article to (say) A-class in your userspace before moving it to article
>> space you'll probably have greater feelings of ownership than if it
>> was in publically editablearticlespace from the start.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:05, Jay
>> Litwyn<brewhaha at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>> > Subject-Was: Re: A new solution for the BLP dilemma
>> >
>> > "Nothing new is under the sun", are among the most humbling of a
>> preacher's words. If you hav ever right-clicked on a file that you uploaded
>> to your website (and you probably hav one that you are not using), then
>> clicked on "properties", you would be greeted with this menu of flags, all
>> within your control:
>> >          R  W  P
>> >          e  r  e
>> >          a  i  r
>> >          d  t  m
>> >             e  i
>> >                t
>> > Owner:    X  X  O
>> > Group:    O  O  O
>> > Everyone: X  O  O
>> >
>> > Those would be appropriate settings for your user page, which is the only
>> one that the system would let you own. Admins would be owners of all pages
>> in main: and user: on wikipedia. That way, if you you refused to comply with
>> one rule or another concerning how user space is used, then an admin would
>> permit everyone to also be able to write to your space, so that a volunteer
>> could show you his ignorance of those rules :-) I can almost see the author
>> of "vandalproof" hanging his head and asking why he did not think of that.
>> >
>> > group permission is a special feature of protected file systems. Windows
>> does not hav group permission in XP, TMK, and it does let you protect shared
>> objects from being written to. My web server is NetBSD, so it does hav
>> groups. Users can be added to groups, so that people who hav made
>> applications for being included in a group -- applications to a sysop would
>> let you write files in a particular project, because you were a member of
>> the required group.
>> >
>> > In a series of occurances, here is how a biography might become
>> authorized and get a special stamp of approval from the subject of the
>> biography.
>> > Someone write's a biography about someone else on their user page.
>> > They let it out among their collaborators.
>> > Two of those collaborators want to fix it, so the starter permits
>> everyone to write to it.
>> > An edit war breaks out, so the sysop (sysops always hav power to permit,
>> as well as power to destroy, which is not displayed) retracts all
>> permission, except permission to a group, then assigns three veterans to
>> that group and solicits their attention to an article in progress.
>> > No blocks are issued.
>> > No significant flaws are in the wording or the evidence.
>> > The page is permitted for reading by all and writing by none.
>> > Occasionally, on the talk page, someone raises {{editprotected}}.
>> > The questions typically get an answer that could hav been found by
>> reading three months of history.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 1001010 1001000110000111011001101100
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>