To Risker: *Edits by reviewers to articles with pending changes are automatically accepted. NO, the reviewer has to manually accept the new revision, and you could have asked **before** creating this mountain of drama and FUD on enwiki, or tested the configuration yourself, or read the documentation, as this is stated very clearly in the tables at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes.
*Pending changes will help to reduce visibility of vandalism and BLP violations Yes, classic protection is way too rigid for Wikipedia today, and has always been too rigid. The flexibility of pending changes protection will allow to use protection where needed, and only where needed, more than classic protection would have ever allowed on its own. The protection policy allows for a considerable amount of discretion, and it is evident that administrators in general would be more willing to apply pending changes protection on articles subject to vandalism or BLP violations than they would otherwise have been with the rigid semi-protection. As long as we can keep up with the backlog, this is a win-win situation. *Pending changes will encourage more non-editors to try to edit, and these new editors will become part of our community. Yes, and no. We may not gain considerably more editors, because it would concern a small number of articles, but every edit makes an editor, even if one-time. No to the second part, because every editor *is* a member of the community. The community is not only the most active editors. And yes, there are people trying to edit semi-protected pages, and in a constructive way. Since we modified the Protectedpagetext<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext>to make submitting edit requests more accessible, we've received many more, the vast majority of those are in good-faith, so there are definitely people out there trying to edit. *Pending changes will help with disputes. No, and it was clearly stated in the proposal, and now clearly stated in the trial policy (scope section), that pending changes protection, level 1 or 2, should not be used on pages subject to disputes. *Anonymous editors will now be able to edit the [[George W. Bush]] and [[Barack Obama]] articles. No, and it was clearly stated in the proposal, and now clearly stated in the trial policy (scope section), that pages subject to too high levels of vandalism should not be protected with pending changes but classic protection. Cenarium On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:12 AM, William Pietri <will...@scissor.com> wrote: > On 06/14/2010 09:56 PM, Risker wrote: > > If there is no intention at this time to stop the trial and > > deactivate the extension on August 15th, I'd like the WMF and the > developers > > to say so now. > > This is, as the community requested, a 60-day trial. At the end of that, > unless the community clearly requests otherwise, we'll turn it back off. > Assuming that the trial starts on time, it will also end on time. > > I'll note that both the start and the end of the trial are mainly up to > the community. People have to agree to start using it, and which > articles to start with. At the end, if there is no decision to extend > the trial or to permanently adopt Pending Changes, the community will > probably need to go and switch all Pending Changes articles to something > else. (Unless they'd like us just to switch them en masse to, say, > semi-protection, but that seems a bit crude.) > > So I think the real question isn't the WMF's intention; it's the > community's intention. As it should be. > > William > > > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
