On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 11:07:09AM -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
For Wikipedia, specifically, any cost which much be paid by potential editors -- within reasonable limits -- is a *good* thing, as it weeds out an increasingly larger pool of potential vandals.
This is less of an issue on non-WMF sites, but I really *do* think it's a good thing for wp, et al, yes. It *is* possible for vandalism to outstrip the capability of the active userbase to clean it up; negative feedback is useful.
I am not so sure that "difficult editing" is an appropriate filter, though.
Yeah, I saw your comment just after I got done writing mine.
"Difficult" is a word with many connotations, of course.
First, to be a vandal, one need not learn the nuances of the table syntax. Second, most vandals are young and web savvy... we are probably slowing them down less than we are slowing down wise and thoughtful people who are not web savvy.
True.
But "complexity as a filter" was, truly, the least of my arguments against replacing wikitext with something much more complex as support for more WYSIWYG front-endry.
Christiaan had merely made that point separately, and I was replying.
I suspect this topic is reaching maximum density anyway, and I was about to sit down.
Cheers, -- jra