On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You would think— But thats only true if the resistance is driven by a >> risk analysis, it's not true for resistance driven by either a hard >> philosophical objection (The "unwiki" position taken by many in the >> discussions) or due to an attempt to thwart change in general. In >> either of these cases you could demonstrate that it works great and >> those opinions would not change. Moreover, the possibility that a test >> may be successful and dispel fears is a reason to oppose testing for >> opponents whom care about things other than success. > > But flagged revisions for currently protected pages is more wiki than > protected pages...
But it's a gateway drug to flagging for everything: If we demonstrate that people don't stop editing those articles, and that the flagged version isn't constantly super stale... then only "unwiki" remains as a major counter argument. Can it drive consensus alone? Not only that, but "making protection 'softer' would encourage people to use it more — flagging may be more wiki, but not enough to offset the enormous increases which are sure to happen" (look at semi: It's used orders of magnitude more than full protection ever was) These are both solid arguments (for a position I don't support...). _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
