[Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections

[David Goodman]

The  most important priority of all is attracting new editors, not
preventing vandalism. Vandalism we can prevent in other ways if we
have editors, but the absence of new editors prevents achieving
anything at all.

Consequently, the likelihood of getting community approval for all
pages is very low.

The successful argument --the only argument which finally get a
sufficient consensus--was that flagging was a less restrictive
environment for new editors than semi-protection. The question now is
whether it will be so obtrusive and awkward, that the non-editing of
semi-protection makes more sense than fruitless and disappointing
trying-to-edit with flagged protection. Unlike some of the other
skeptics, I am not willing to predict failure at this. But that we
don't even know what to call it remains an indicator that we do not
know how it will be perceived.


On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:39 PM, James Heilman <jmh649 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the best way of rolling this out if it is possible would be to
> replace all semi protected articles with flagged protected or"double check"
> protected.  If it works well we could than either add more pages or apply it
> to all pages.
>
> This would make it more seamless, draw less potentially negative media
> attention, and allow all those who will be dealing with these edits to
> figure out how the system works.  We do not want to end up like the baggage
> terminal at that new terminal in London.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG