m italics |
rephrase some |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{proposal}} |
{{proposal}} |
||
Many users have noticed and complained about the overabundance of vandalism |
Many users have noticed and complained about the overabundance of vandalism in the [[George W. Bush]] and other high-profile articles. In these highly vandalized articles, for several hours in any given day the article displays a vandalized version for the reader and editor alike. Instead of the text and images one would expect from a reputable encyclopedia, the reader discovers vulgarities and either incorrect or deliberately distasteful imagery. Most of the work done in these high profile articles is to revert vandalism, from the most obvious blanking to the most subtle {{tl|verror}} entries. Some articles, such as George W Bush have had little new contributions done and they have instead turned into a battleground in which vitually every edit is either one by a vandal or one by a revert of vandalism. In these articles, so much time is wasted that nothing substantive can be done to improve the material or quality of information in the article due to the edit wars between the vandals and those reverting their edits. This situation tarnishes the reputation of Wikipedia and hampers the efforts of reputable editors. 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 [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|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; |
The idea behind semi-protection is very simple. It works like regular [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|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; |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Protection will be handled like it is now, on [[WP:RFPP|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. |
Protection will be handled like it is now, on [[WP:RFPP|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 |
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 note 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 note 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. |
||
---- |
---- |
||
''Discussion at the '''[[Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy|talk page]]''''' |
''Discussion at the '''[[Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy|talk page]]''''' |
Revision as of 06:08, 29 November 2005
Many users have noticed and complained about the overabundance of vandalism in the George W. Bush and other high-profile articles. In these highly vandalized articles, for several hours in any given day the article displays a vandalized version for the reader and editor alike. Instead of the text and images one would expect from a reputable encyclopedia, the reader discovers vulgarities and either incorrect or deliberately distasteful imagery. Most of the work done in these high profile articles is to revert vandalism, from the most obvious blanking to the most subtle {{verror}} entries. Some articles, such as George W Bush have had little new contributions done and they have instead turned into a battleground in which vitually every edit is either one by a vandal or one by a revert of vandalism. In these articles, so much time is wasted that nothing substantive can be done to improve the material or quality of information in the article due to the edit wars between the vandals and those reverting their edits. This situation tarnishes the reputation of Wikipedia and hampers the efforts of reputable editors. 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 note 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.
Discussion at the talk page