Aaron Schulz (talk | contribs) m →Comments: wiki |
taking out supporter/detractor sections: it's way too early to be talking about that |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Please not that this will not be the norm on all pages. We still want to keep the spirit of the wiki open and free, and implementing this will be a great tool in the war on vandalism, rather than a tool in the war on new users. |
Please not that this will not be the norm on all pages. We still want to keep the spirit of the wiki open and free, and implementing this will be a great tool in the war on vandalism, rather than a tool in the war on new users. |
||
==Supporters== |
|||
* [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] 05:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC). |
|||
* |
|||
==Detractors== |
|||
* |
|||
==Comments== |
==Comments== |
Revision as of 05:52, 29 November 2005
Many users have noticed and complained about the overabundance of vandalism at George W. Bush and other high-profile articles. The page is out for long periods at a time, being replaced with images of penises, vulgarities, and other distasteful images and wording. Most of the work done on that page is to revert vandalism, from the most obvious blanking to the most subtle {{verror}} entries. In short, we need a solution to this problem. That solution is semi-protection.
The idea behind semi-protection is very simple. It works like regular protection does now, except non-admins may edit a page, provided their edit count passes a low barrier, say, 10 edits or so. There are different levels of protection proposed;
- Open
- No Moves
- 10 edits minimum
- 50/100 edits minimum
- full protection (only admins may modify)
(Notice that with the exception of #3 and 4, these are already in place.)
The barrier is still low enough that legitimate users can change a typo, or move something around. If the vandalism becomes too severe, or it needs to be majorly restructured, the protection level may move up to level 4, wherein only experienced users can change the article. This is good for pages like RfA and other Wikipedia namespaces where new user voting is discouraged, and vandalism is high.
10 edits is enough to show dedication to the project, and would weed out many vandals before they get to actually deface the article. The vast majority of vandals have their first edit as vandalism. Very few vandals will be determined enough to make good edits to other articles ten times before attempting to vandalize a high-profile page.
Protection will be handled like it is now, on Requests for page protection, except admins who are on the fence about protecting a page will be given a wider arsenal of tools from which to use. It will no longer be a difficult decision, and will keep problems from occurring as a result of perceived admin bias.
While this many come of as anti-wiki to many editors, please be assured that it is not, in fact; the vast majority of pages will still be open and wiki-like. A new editor will simply go onto another page, and will not be deterred; they can come back after they have made a few good edits. A decision was made along these lines not too long ago, regarding the idea of protecting the main page. Under this plan, templates and other protected items can be protected under #4, so that non-admins may be able to edit templates as well, furthering the spirit of the wiki.
Please not that this will not be the norm on all pages. We still want to keep the spirit of the wiki open and free, and implementing this will be a great tool in the war on vandalism, rather than a tool in the war on new users.
Comments
- I strongly recomment a minimum of 25. I have watched vandals and they can easily rack up the ten needed to hit a major page and damage more user's view of Wiki.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)