[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia page protection report

[Anthere]

Timwi wrote:

> Anthere wrote:
> 
>>
>> This is only true if there is no social norm forbidding a sysop to 
>> edit a protected page. At least, on the english and french wikipedia, 
>> I do think the rule of no-edit on a protected page exist.
> 
> 
> Can't speak for Fr, but at least on En, sysops are allowed -- almost 
> even encouraged -- to make minor edits to protected articles that are 
> likely uncontroversial. Spelling corrections are a very obvious form of 
> this, but edits can easily go a lot further. This isn't much of a 
> problem on En because the community of sysops is vastly multi-cultural 
> and of such varying opinions that even slightly significant edits are 
> likely to spark controversy and are therefore avoided.
> 
> On De, however, I perceive a much more homogenous distribution of 
> opinions among the sysops. Since it was a sysop who made the edit, and 
> since sysops are trusted users, the edit was probably trustworthy. Since 
> there are often no other sysops disputing/opposing the edit, it doesn't 
> matter that the edit was of a much greater significance/magnitude than 
> some edits that spark violent edit wars. This (among many many other 
> things) encourages existing sysops to make sure the community of sysops 
> remains broadly like-minded, and this in turn encourages the view that 
> dissenting non-sysop editors are just vandals, and encourages the sysops 
> to keep the page protected. Hence, as Erik said, "sysops become far more 
> relevant in the power structure" and "instead of being janitors, they 
> become editors".
> 
> Timwi

Makes sense...

Could it be possible that certain pages are automatically unprotected 
after a certain time, while others (such as main page or site notice...) 
remain protected ? In short, two different types of protection ?

Ant