On 15 June 2010 02:38, Cenarium sysop <cenarium.sy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Actually, it was impossible to try on the testwiki at the time, because the "reviewer" permission hadn't been activated yet. And the tables clearly state that the edit must be "accepted". There was no indication at the time in the documentation that any other option was possible or acceptable, and no way to test it at the reviewer level. > > *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. > Can you please identify methods in which we can measure the improvement here? Are you proposing, even before the trial starts, to start including articles that do not meet the criteria for page protection? Let's be clear, Cenarium; the trial is very specifically only to be used on pages that meet the *current* criteria for page protection; what you're suggesting here is something completely unrelated to the trial of pending changes in and of itself. > > *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. > Those who are making good faith edits (or requesting them) *might* be members of the community, but I'm not particularly inclined to include the drive-by vandals as such. > > *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. > Remember, my list was made up of things that various people have proposed as good reasons to institute pending changes. I completely agree with you that it was never intended, but some people still think it was. I removed it from the draft policy, in fact; I have no idea who added it in. > > *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. > Yes, indeed. Another place where we agree! Unfortunately, the very first press publication about this change specifically suggested that the [[George W. Bush]] article would become accessible to unregistered and newly registered editors. I'm not the enemy here. I have something of a well-earned reputation as a BLP absolutist and I spend a good part of every week addressing the fallout of vandalism. But I've been around this project too long, and seen too many exceedingly buggy software deployments and major attempts to hijack policy and practice. I can turn a blind eye to a fair number of these, if they don't affect matters within my usual area of assumed responsibility. This one, however, is openly being billed as one thing (improved editing accessibilty for non-registered and newly registered users on articles they've previously been shut out of), but it's pretty obvious that there is a significant desire to use this tool to do exactly the opposite, and actually restrict automatically visible edits from non-registered and newly registered users on a much larger swath of articles. Keep the trial limited to articles that currently meet the protection policy, and there is a reasonable chance of success. Start pushing it further, and the outcome will be considerably more in doubt. Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
