On 8 June 2012 12:38, Andrew West <[email protected]> wrote: > After my experience on Saturday, when my daughter went to the featured > article of the day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II) and was > greeted by large pornographic images injected into the article through > unprotected templates, if I were were in charge of a library or a > school I would be very hesitant about linking to Wikipedia from my > institute's main page. I know that episodes like this are an > unavoidable consequence of the Wikipedia editing model, and that you > can never entirely eliminate the possibility of offensive vandalism > reaching high profile pages, but it always makes me feel a little > uneasy that we are so keen to promote Wikipedia that we sometimes > forget that Wikipedia is a potentially risky site. >
A while back, I proposed semi-protection of low-use redirects. Redirect and template vandalism is one of those things where (if we don't have pending changes/flagged revs), there's a real potential for someone to change it and nobody to notice for months. I fixed a redirect that someone had vandalised and which had been left for months. The argument against either semi-pp or pending changes on those kinds of pages is "but, anyone can edit, anyone should be able to edit!" Which is fine, but when we're talking about obscure templates and redirects, I can't quite see any great loss when they aren't available for editing by IPs. -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
