Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Laberkiste (talk | contribs) |
m Fix lint errors |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 7:
;Users who endorse this position
#While I do understand the benefits of PC and why people support it, I still believe that any PC/FR-style protection is against the fundamental principles of the project, in that there should no difference between editors (except such differences that are unavoidable) and that everyone should be able to edit equally (while semi-protection for example blocks IPs, those users can easily get the status that allows them to edit regardless - PC on the other hand would restrict editing in those cases to a small group of users). I also think that the PC trial showed that this is a kind of "power" that a number of admins do not grasp correctly and I fear that PC will lead to further problems with incorrect usage and problems with anon / new users being scared away by overzealous "reviewers" who use their new-found "powers" to reject valid edits they don't agree with. Imho the problems of any tool that allows one group of users to decide which edits of other users are valid without discussion by far outweigh the benefits. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="color: #7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color: #474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]]''' 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
#That's pretty much it. I get the idea and all, but it just didn't work out. <
#Will be glad to see the back of it. [[User:HairyWombat|HairyWombat]] 20:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
#Use of pending changes over a significant fraction of our articles would contradict fundamental principles and create huge mountains of work. I was supportive of the alternative idea of using pending changes as a form of protection, but I don't think the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. Protected pages are by definition subject to abuse, most suggested edits to pages under PC were not constructive, and the edits which were useful did not justify the expense of editor effort to weed out the problematic edits. At the same time there is certainly the potential for abuse in the manner described by SoWhy. I don't think use of the tool can be justified except possibly in a handful of special cases. '''''
#Pending changes is strictly worse than any other antivandal/accuracy measure we've got, since it can very easily be gamed by vandals, is overly reliant on an ever-shrinking user pool (last time I pegged the rate of reviewers to potential PC candidates at 1:65), and does active harm to Wikipedia and its reputation if understaffed/ignored. There is no way in creation that this would serve any purpose for Wikipedia, other than depressing already-anemic membership numbers even further. No new blood means nobody to write the encyclopedia. —<
#I understand the good intentions, but I wonder if I would have been as likely to join WP if I had to start out as a third-class-citizen. Our radical openness and the immediacy of an edit is an essential part of the Wikipedia experience. If we applied PC only to pages currently protected, perhaps it would help openness-- but I think we can reasonably anticipate that PC will be used more liberally, e.g. every BLP. We're a wiki-- no one expects us to be perfect. It's okay if a 'bad' revision is public for a bit-- that's an opportunity the readers to learn just how democratic WP is. In some ways, "reviewing" could make things worse-- implying that an article has been 'screened for quality' in some way, when in fact, it's only screened for obvious vandalism. In the balance between "Openness" and "Quality", we are too far towards quality. "Quality Mania" has to stop before we drive all new users away. [[User:HectorMoffet|HectorMoffet]] ([[User talk:HectorMoffet|talk]]) 02:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#I dislike Pending Changes (and any derivative of flagged revisions) primarily due to the "third-class citizen" idea that it brings about, which has been brought up by others above. I also think that Pending Changes is largely only seen as good from the "vandal fighting" perspective, but there is more to Wikipedia than attempting to control the behavior of others and the content of articles which are in an editors personal interest area. It looks like a foregone conclusion that this RFC will show Pending Changes as being supported, but I believe that it's use is antithetical to the core principles of editing Wikipedia.<br/>— [[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 05:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#I find the system unnecessarily complicated to use and administer. Wikipedia is already complex enough, especially for newbie editors. The aims of the draft policy below, to protect pages that need it from disruption, can just as well be achieved by applying the standard full or semiprotection tool. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<
#Pending Changes would, I believe, make Wikipedia more authoritarian and less democratic. The fact is this is a free and open encyclopaedia that anyone - even the most malevolent and ignorant people on the Internet - can and may edit, and edit it without censorship. --[[Special:Contributions/Mátyás|''... there's more'']] [[User:Mátyás|''than what can be'']] [[User talk:Mátyás|''linked.'']] 10:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#Right problem, wrong solution. Incomprehensible technical wizardry, confuses everyone as to whether they are in fact editing the article, and even as to what "the article" in fact means at a given time. I don't so much share the concerns about preserving "core principles" of openness and democracy - which are double-edged swords - but just want things simple and upfront. If an article is closed to public editing, then tell people so, tell them why, and tell them how they can still get changes made. [[User:Victor Yus|Victor Yus]] ([[User talk:Victor Yus|talk]]) 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Line 31:
<!-- PLEASE ADD A HASH SIGN (#) BEFORE YOUR ENDORSEMENT. USE THE DISCUSSION SECTION TO REPLY TO COMMENTS IN OTHER USERS' ENDORSEMENTS. PLEASE DO NOT ADD ALTERNATE PROPOSALS -->
# Particularly as per HectorMoffet and GorillaWarfare. [[User:AllyD|AllyD]] ([[User talk:AllyD|talk]]) 21:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
# No, no and no. This has been resurrected and buried a couple of times now. Why will nobody let this corpse rest in its grave? The only thing to come of this is arguments, more arguments, and [[WP:DRAMA|Wikidrama]]. It's dead, for god's sake leave it that way. <span style="border: 1px solid red;">[[User_talk:BarkingFish|<
# Although as a community we have dealt with vandalism and content disputes in the past, if there are serious flaws with an editors who are interested in an article who watch it can always revert it and begin a discussion if necessary. One of the virtues and responsibilities of Wikipedia is that ANYONE can edit an article (and we are to have good faith that for the most part that anyone will be editing in a positive manor that keeps with the [[WP:5P|pillars]] that guide our community), and with such freedom others can also alter those edits if they are deemed to not be keeping with guidelines and policies that have consensus by our community. Granted this means that involved knowledgeable editors need to patrol for vandalism or content they believe do not meet [[WP:V]] or [[WP:NPOV]] or something else (like [[WP:BLP]]), but that is the responsibility that keeps with the freedom of openness that makes Wikipedia so accessible. --[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 00:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# My views are summed up by many of the previous posters here. [[User:Dalliance|Dalliance]] ([[User talk:Dalliance|talk]]) 12:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Line 37:
# '''Oppose'''. I am concerned that this proposal will result in a more hierarchical system with more power to administrators and reviewers. The draft policy requires reviewer status to have similar requirements to rollback, but as others have noted the exact requirements to get the permission and what exactly reviewers should accept or not are not clear, which is unacceptable. PC protection is different from the existing semi-protect because AFAIK confirmed is an automatically granted permission; not one that requires beseeching one of our administrative overlords to allow you into the cool kids club, yet another potential dealbreaker for a possible new editor. [[User:OSborn|OSborn]]<sup> [[User_talk:OSborn|arf]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/OSborn|contribs.]]</sub> 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# PC level 1 proved to be a spectactular failure: added complexity, reduced performance, conflicting views as to what editors should look for, and generally less usable than our current system. PC level 2, while underused previously, appeared to have actual merit and value. I would support a move to add PC 2 to our toolset, but oppose PC 1.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 19:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# It simply didn't work properly. [[User:Reyk|<
# There are over 3000 pages under [[:Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages]]; of which I can only assume a good portion will eventually achieve "pending changes" status instead. This is not to mention [[:Category:Biography articles of living people]] which contains over '''500,000''' pages, of which it is safe to assume at least a small portion will achieve "pending changes" status as well. Let's assume that only 1% of BLPs eventually get saddled with pending changes: That's 8,000 articles. Who is going to review all of these? And more importantly, ''what projects will suffer from losing editors to pending changes''. I suspect [[Special:Newpages]] and [[Special:Recentchanges]] will lose some people, and those projects are incredibly backlogged already. There just aren't enough man-hours to go around, and not enough benefit to the Wiki. This is only one of my reasons for not supporting Pending Changes, but I feel a long-winded tirade would be unwelcome here. Great idea, but then again so is communism: It only works on paper. -<b>[[User:Runningonbrains|<span style="color:#000">Running</span><
# Pending changes are confusing and ineffective, considering the sheer number of daily changes made to most popular articles. --[[User:DmitryKo|Dmitry]] <sub>([[User talk:DmitryKo|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/DmitryKo|contibs]])</sub> 22:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# Feeling that this RfC is [[WP:FORUMSHOP|forum shopping]] until the desired outcome is achieved. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><
# Never supported it. Never will. — [[User:Explicit|<
# --[[User:M4gnum0n|M4gnum0n]] ([[User talk:M4gnum0n|talk]]) 14:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
#PC should only be used as an alternative to protection and semi protection on the ~3000 pages that currently use it. It should not be used on more than a small percent of all pages as PC can only combat blatant vandalism -- at the price of a more authoritarian and bureaucratic system, an unknown number of lost edits and editors, and encouragement of more subtle vandalism. This is what we should fear. In my ~8 years as a WP reader, I've only stumbled upon vandalism or broken pages (e.g broken infobox syntax) by causal browsing a few times in a few hundred of thousands page views; of course, this is thanks to all the time-consuming vandalfighting done by our community. Sure, this quick fix will reduce the workload of antivandal fighters, but it will increase the workload of reviewers. PC will not make WP less prone to errors, OR or SYNTH; ''at best'', it is a dangerous system that will save us some time, but this should be shown by the proponents of this idea. [[User:Jonkerz|jonkerz]] [[User talk:Jonkerz|♠talk]] 16:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
#In my opinion the PC is partial implementation of [[WP:PP]]. Given that it comes with an overhead and disputable benefits, I would propose to stick with the consistent and stable [[WP:PP]]. — [[User:Czarkoff|Dmitrij D. Czarkoff]] ([[User talk:Czarkoff|talk]]) 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
# Two reasons; one we don't have the manpower to create this huge backlog and time sink. Two, despite being active in page protection for two years, I've never seen a single situation where I thought PC would be a better solution than just semi'ing the page. While not a perfect system, it serves without asking editors to devote dozens of man-hours a day keeping it straight. Witness the Russian Wikipedia, where backlogs containing several hundred unreviewed edits on a single page are not uncommon, to see where an undermanned PC system could have us end up. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 21:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
# The trial was a failure in my opinion. Actually, if we had not discontinued the trial's system of mass unprotecting pages to implement PC, then it would have been a ''complete'' failure. Not only did it create more unnecessary work for users, a number of times that I've seen where people who have requested or suggested PC over semi-protection on an article/articles have done put in little to absolutely no effort in alleviating the workload on the requested/suggested articles. Considering that I work mainly with vandalism and anti-abuse, I don't see how PC will realistically help deal with the vandalism, the trial very clearly showed us this. I also agree with Courcelles's second statement, semi-protection is just plain better. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b>[[User:Elockid|<
# In my opinion the experiment failed to show any benefit with Pending Changes. [[User:Edgepedia|Edgepedia]] ([[User talk:Edgepedia|talk]]) 06:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
# I had an experience with PC in Arabic Wikipedia and it scared me off for months. Another new editor who I invited made one big referenced edit, but left WP when it was refused. The bad thing about PC is that you either accept all changes or reject all. Unlike what many think here, I believe that just like with the Arabic WP, many articles will have multiple PCs forming a long backlog. I think this should only be used when semi-protection isn't effective enough. <b>[[User:Bahraini Activist|<span style="font-family:Segoe Script;color:#ff0000">Mohamed CJ</span>]]</b> [[User talk:Bahraini Activist |<sup><span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#07517C">(talk)</span></sup>]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
# I would still say that semi-protection performs all the tasks of PC without adding a new reviewer user-right. If someone wants to edit a page, they can ask on the talk page for semi-protection. PC will add more complication, time, energy, and effort than exists now. [[User:Angryapathy|Angryapathy]] ([[User talk:Angryapathy|talk]]) 17:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
# Not needed. [[User talk:INeverCry|<font face="AR Cena" color="black"><b>INeverCry</b></font>]] 01:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
# Even though I am a respected user on en.wiki - I am an admin, an arbitrator, and I have FA and GA experience, when I edit on some other wikis, such as the German wiki, I have to have my edits approved as I have not edited there enough to be a confirmed user, and sometimes I have had fairly minor edits queried or refused. That has discouraged me from using wikis with PC. I would prefer registered editing - provide my email and personal details as I did when becoming an arbitrator, and then be allowed to get on with editing. A one time, simple registration rather than making a series of edits and then waiting several days. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
# I endorse Postion #1 for many reasons which are covered within the broad language of, "The negative aspects of pending changes outweigh the positive. Therefore the tool should not be used at all on the English Wikipedia." [[User:Refrigerator Heaven|Refrigerator Heaven]] ([[User talk:Refrigerator Heaven|talk]]) 11:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
# Too clunky - in PC, editor makes edit which is left hanging until reviewed. The often-obscure change leaves a reviewer scratching their head as the editor who made the edit has long gone. Semiprotection means the requester has to explain the rationale for a proposed edit first. I find semiprotection a more useful tool in the situation. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 12:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Line 68:
#During the trial, I found pending changes to be clunky, unintuitive, confusing, and frequently misapplied. Although I believe that it is a potentially useful tool as long as it is used ''very'' sparingly, I highly doubt that it would be used properly, and I think the risk of making anons and new users feel marginalized (among other concerns) far outweighs the potential benefits. --[[User:Bongwarrior|Bongwarrior]] ([[User talk:Bongwarrior|talk]]) 14:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
#Pending Changes is a proposal uniquely marked by deception; its goals are '''not''' to stop vandalism but to '''censor articles'''. It started with a trial that the community voted clear consensus to stop three times, but which still limped on regardless of all consensus and deadline. Even after it was stopped, an administrator kept using it on some favorite biographies of his, at level 2 with no editing by anyone outside the reviewer pool allowed, while making it clear (having previously removed my reviewer right) that people who simply ''disagree'' that BLP policy should be so expansive on a discussion page are subject to revocation. When actually saying yes or no, the duties of reviewers have never been specified, and it has never been answered whether reviewers are liable for libel if they approve such an edit. While it is being marketed as a "less than lethal weapon", like tasers were when they were introduced, we should all know that this is anything but the truth - articles that would not have been semi-protected, like "all BLPs", will be hit with level 1 pending changes, and articles that would ''never'' have gotten full-protection will routinely be subjected to level 2 pending changes. This is admitted every time proponents say that it will "cut down on BLP violations", because if it were replaced only in the manner claimed, it would only allow ''more'' BLP violations by allowing more people to edit. Stake and decapitate, salt and burn! [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
#I endorse this position. At the end of the day PC doesn't stop vandalism, it just tries to cover it up by delaying the publication of new edits. It would also create additional problems whilst solving none; giving too much power to reviewers, creating an additional backlog of work (regardless of the scale), and potentially be open to creeping extension to more and more articles by making protection appear as less of a big thing. Not to mention the fact that since WMF is refusing to make improvements unless we commit to use the extension, we are effectively being forced to accept it blind, and with no option to change our minds later. Additionally, by assuming all edits to be unconstructive until proven otherwise by being approved, this is effectively removing the [[WP:AGF|assumption of good faith]]. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<
# I am wholeheartedly opposed to implementing pending changes on this project. Our burning, big picture, problem is new editors being pushed away by complex procedures, brusque or automated replies to edits from existing editors and steep learning curves for everything else. Our minor problems of vandal fighting and what-not become immaterial if wikipedia ceases to be a living resource. I could support a full revamp of the model for page changes but only if it respects the premise that new editors are not inherently a threat. I won't go on because my position is basically unchanged from past RfCs. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 20:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
# Yet another barrier to editing that we don't even have the manpower to keep up with.©[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 18:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
#Others have said it more eloquently, but it just goes against the spirit of this project, it will not be the encyclopedia anybody can edit if this passes. <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<
# It seems to me that PC restricts the ability of autoconfirmed editors to deal promptly with errors, but increases the ability of anonymous editors to introduce errors (unless the reviewer is 'all knowing'). What will be the procedure when the body of W editors need to censure an incompetent reviewer? Don't introduce this new hurdle. Wikipedia is already too complex. [[User:Apuldram|Apuldram]] ([[User talk:Apuldram|talk]]) 11:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:Mbak Dede|Mbak Dede]] ([[User talk:Mbak Dede|talk]]) 12:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
# simply no again. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap
# No to change! <i>Mutationes non sunt multiplicandae sine necessitate</i>[[User:Twr57|Twr57]] ([[User talk:Twr57|talk]]) 15:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
# No ideological problems with designing light controls for Wikipedia to improve the quality of content. My objections are pragmatic. It's convoluted and complicated, which outweighs its tiny benefits as an anti-vandalism tool. We're better off finding other ways to fight vandalism. [[User:Shooterwalker|Shooterwalker]] ([[User talk:Shooterwalker|talk]]) 22:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Line 82:
# I didn't get on with the trial, so that has partially shaped my impression of it. However, a bigger issue is that it seems to add another hurdle in the way of attracting new editors - everybody who started editing here remembers the sense of excitement when something you added appeared straight away. If new editors see their edits being regularly refused/sat in a queue for ages, then it rather misses the point of the project and could see experienced editors spending all their time reviewing rather than contributing. '''[[User:Bob Castle|Bob]]''' <small>'''[[User talk:Bob Castle|talk]]'''</small> 19:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
# Pending changes is a bad idea for all the reasons stated above. Pages placed under full or semi-protection is by far the better option as it is less complicated and does not put a greater burden on the present users. Pending changes is also a possible door to censorship and the enforecement of one's particular POV. Imagine the chaos that would ensue were pending changes to be applied to [[The Troubles]]-related articles where edit-warring and POV-pushing are already rampant.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 05:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
# I've argued against PC at length during the trial period, so rather than re-iterating my position I'll echo the heading: the negative aspects outweigh the positive. '''[[User:Jebus989|<
#As an editor resident in the EU, unless someone can put forward a good argument to address the question that I have raised on the discussion page [[Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012/Discussion#A_question_on_liability | here]] I would not be willing to review edits, especially on BLP pages, without personally checking and archiving copies of the sources. I can envisage many other EU residents adopting a similar position. This has the potential to make editorial control of EN Wikipedia more US centric, which I do not believe is a good thing. [[User:FrankFlanagan|FrankFlanagan]] ([[User talk:FrankFlanagan|talk]]) 20:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
# The one most necessary thing for the survival of Wikipedia is that we continue to attract new editors. For most new editors, the attraction of seeing one's edits immediately in the live version is one of the key attractions. Therefore other considerations are not even relevant. But in any case, the problems which incoming articles and new edits is much less than those with existing ones: we are already more careful than in the past. I left a site (Citizendium) where although I had status to edit directly, most others needed them approved--I left because experience showed the site was dying because of inability to attract newcomers. Our procedures are already excessively troublesome both to newcomers and to anyone who sets out to help them--it's the main complaint of those trying to start working here '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Comment'''I think it should be reformed although the PC looks fit.--[[User:Monareal|Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish!]] ([[User talk:Monareal|talk]]) 05:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)▼
# '''Oppose'''If it gives admins the power, some cruel admins(I am not blaming any kind admin, but cruel ones) can block users for nothing or do personal attacks.--[[User:Monareal|Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish!]] ([[User talk:Monareal|talk]]) 12:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
▲#: '''Comment'''I think it should be reformed although the PC looks fit.--[[User:Monareal|Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish!]] ([[User talk:Monareal|talk]]) 05:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
# This is not a request for comment, it's a request for votes. The structure is ridiculously constraining. If it was a proper request for comment, then we wouldn't be so rigidly confined to discussing the three predetermined options. Of the three options available, this is the one that comes closest to my view, although I really ought to be editing the sections called "not this rubbish again" and "haven't we already hunted this down and killed it several times before?" and "no doubt I'll see you all again at the next pending changes-related RFC".—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)<
# I would like to vote for the adoption of Pending changes -- or something like it -- but the entire process of its adoption has been so badly handled that there will never be a consensus for adopting it in the foreseeable future. (Frankly, I consider the whole Pending changes debate a text book example of how '''not''' to change policy on Wikipedia.) A majority of Wikipedians -- either a slight or large majority, depending on who one talks to -- supports it; a sizable minority is opposed to it; yet there has been no effort to attempt to talk to the minority to understand & address their concerns, nor even to provide an objective way to test whether Pending changes can/will fix any problems. Let's just drop the whole idea for a long, long time. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 16:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
#We would be better served by semi/full protection. It is confusing to tell an editor that they can edit the page, only to have their edit not show up after they make it. Either let them edit the page, or tell them flat-out that they can't and how to make an edit(semi)protected request. There were also serious problems with overuse even during the trial, and I would be very concerned about yet another backlog requiring human intervention. Requiring edit(semi)protected drives away vandals while still allowing good-faith users to put in their edit; under PC, they'll still make the vandal edit and require someone to waste time figuring out it's vandalism and disapproving it. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Line 94:
#For the benefits gained, we'd be adding disproportionate extra complication, and a frustrating indefinite time lag to the edits of a much broader section of the editorship. Also, the responsibility for accepting edits is currently on the entire community (implicitly, by not reverting them) - transferring that onto a single individual (by explicitly approving an edit) does not seem like a desirable situation to me. [[User:Quackdave|Quackdave]] ([[User talk:Quackdave|talk]]) 20:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
#Goes against the basic principles. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 22:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse'''. What Seraphimblade said, ''viz.'' "We would be better served by semi/full protection. It is confusing to tell an editor that they can edit the page, only to have their edit not show up after they make it. Either let them edit the page, or tell them flat-out they can't, and how to make an edit(semi)protected request..." – <
# '''Endorse position #1'''{{spaced ndash}} "The negative aspects of pending changes outweigh the positive. Therefore the tool should not be used at all on the English Wikipedia."<br> If enacted, Wikipedia's statement on the main page of "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" would have to be changed to "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but contributions to articles protected by pending-changes protection may not be posted until they are reviewed and approved by other people." The current [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|Protection policy]] already in place for articles is sufficient. The enactment of pending changes to pages would very likely significantly discourage new editors from contributing to the project. There are also concerns of elitism, in which in some cases only "approved" editors would be allowed to edit articles with their contributions immediately posting, while all other editors, including autoconfirmed editors in some cases, would have to wait for the "approved" editors to provide permission. Then a bunch of new policies and guidelines would have to be created to clarify what types of contributions would be "acceptable" and "unacceptable", in addition to Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines. For example, if an editor adds very basic information to an article, the type that typically doesn't require sourcing to be included, or information without inline citations that is backed by sources already present in an article, would the entry be denied or allowed? If an editor were to add controversial information to an article that is backed by reliable sources, would the information be included or denied by the reviewers? Pending-changes protection would also create a type of [[Social class|class system]], in which the content of some Wikipedia articles would be ruled by an [[oligarchy]], with the rest of Wikipedia's contributors being in the position of a lower class within this type of article governance system. <small><
# '''Endorse''' Goes against the spirit of the project and with antivandal bots improving all the time, loss exceeds gain. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 10:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' Any official control of content by a select group is completely antithetical to the spirit of WP. As for vandalism of BLPs, I am certain that for every dedicated vandal, there are more dedicated users willing and able to undo the vandalism quickly. Where we're falling short is in sourcing content, but that's another discussion all together. [[User:Paratrooper450|Paratrooper450]] ([[User talk:Paratrooper450|talk]]) 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Line 101:
# It was an interesting experiment, but it has significant problems. 1) It's superfluous; it creates an additional fuzzy concept that overlaps massively with semi-protection, a much easier to implement approach. 2) It is going to add a major new workload to a site which already has backlogs everywhere. 3) It adds another tier of "more equal" users who stand above "regular" editors. 4) Finally, it is yet another way to discourage and disenfranchise new participants. <B>—[[User:Torchiest|Torchiest]]</B> <sup>[[User talk:Torchiest|talk]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Torchiest|edits]]</sub> 22:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
# I agree with many of the points made above. PC is anathema to the spirit of Wikipedia, whose immediacy is a large part of its appeal. Semi-protection is somewhat restrictive but easy to understand, and reasons for proposing or opposing proposed edits can be better explained on talk pages than in edit summaries. PC creates extra layers of bureaucracy, hierarchy and obfuscation, with enormous potential for misunderstanding. Reviewers are left with no clear idea of what's expected of them; IP's and newbies may erroneously assume that only blatantly inappropriate material will be blocked and that their good faith edits will all be accepted; and casual readers may imagine that "reviewed" articles have been subjected, in their entirety, to some sort of rigorous quality control. We also have no evidence that enough reviewer-hours would be available to make its widespread implementation remotely feasible. [[User:Contains Mild Peril|Contains Mild Peril]] ([[User talk:Contains Mild Peril|talk]]) 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
# <small>[[user:kennedy|<
# I will never support this tool unless or until someone provides some actual hard evidence about who are the types of people who are making the most useful edits, and whether this tool would have a detrimental effect on them. If there's already been a trial, this should be possible, yes? I strongly suspect that most useful edits come largely from relatively new users, the exact types of people who really wouldn't understand this tool, or rather, wouldn't really want to learn about it before they lost interest in contributing altogether. I can't find any evidence that backs up the claims being made that this tool 'works' and I suspect the only thing that is meant by that is that it stops vandalism. There's a reason why all the prospective competitors to Wikipedia have failed, and it's not been because they were too easily vandalised, but because they all fundamentally misunderstood what made Wikipedia a success in the first place - openness, simplicity and immediacy. If Wikipedia isn't careful, then it won't be too hard for Google to hijack the market by rebooting 'original' Wikipedia but with ads, using all of the content already here. All they're waiting for, is for Wikipedia to vacate the position of market leader by turning itself into something that doesn't work, or at least can't sustain itself with enough users and edits to keep writing it, as well as keeping what's already in it relevant and accurate. The key facts relevant to this decision is not vandalism or quality, they are that Wikipedia is clearly still not finished, Wikipedia is not immune to competition, and Wikipedia does not pay its contributors for their work. [[User:Krismeadon|Krismeadon]] ([[User talk:Krismeadon|talk]]) 19:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
# How many times must this come up? --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 19:37 20 April 2012 (GMT)
Line 116:
# Those who are in favour of this tend to be those who might be in a position to wield power over who edits Wikipedia and how. This is antithetical to the premise of Wikipedia. --'''''[[User:Cooper-42|Cooper]]'''''<sup>42</sup> 16:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
# Overly complicated, convoluted, hard to understand, and doesn't work well, anyway. We have enough procedures and protections.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 18:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
# Pending Changes was designed in reaction to our failure to prevent vandalism on BLPs. Since it seems widely agreed that it fails to adequately protect BLPs, suffers from major design problems and bugs, and is not a supported piece of software in the long run, it would be extremely unwise to enable the use of it on any scale. <
# It ain't broke. Don't "fix" it. [[User:Doprendek|Doprendek]] ([[User talk:Doprendek|talk]]) 05:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Strong Reject'''. This really just seems like a whole layer of bureaucracy that Wikipedia doesn't need, and shouldn't need. The fact that changes can be edited in to articles, but not shown, so that an innumerable slate of other editors can edit the same thing in just seems awful. I cannot see how this would become anything more than a hassle for editors and an inscrutable horror for reviewers. Either you can edit an article or you can't. Since you can always suggest an addition to an article in its talk page, this proposal is even redundant to our existing procedures. Send it to the dark pit from whence it came. [[User:Vanisaac|Van]][[User talk:Vanisaac|Isaac]]<sub><small>[[WP:WikiProject Writing systems|WS]]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-2.9ex">[[Special:Contributions/Vanisaac|contribs]]</sup> 05:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse position #1''' we need to put this approach aside and move on. I'm open to similar approaches with different implementation, once the dust has settled, however. [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]] ([[User talk:Stuartyeates|talk]]) 10:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Strong Endorse to position #1'''. The negative aspects of pending changes outweigh the positive. Therefore the tool should not be used at all on the English Wikipedia. This is putting more power into the hands of those (administrators included) that manipulate WP rules to remove and control knowledgeable contributors and push their own twisted agenda. Bureaucracy is already a problem on WP - we do not need more of it! Much of WP is ruled by people getting together in groups and pushing new editors out. It's ugly and this rule would only enforce that! As for the child issue, position #1 would cause more damage because it's the abusers that are the most forceful and manipulative. They will find a way to push their agenda.[[User:Tylas|~ty]] ([[User talk:Tylas|talk]]) 18:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
# Per my experiences both as an en.wiki reviewer and on the German Wikipeida as an IP, where my beneficial changes (including the removal of personal information/email addressed) sat ignored for almost a week. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<
# '''Endorse''' Pending Changes will only speed up the decline of editors, encourage smaller, less constructive edits to large projects, and maintain the position of a limited few editors as somehow 'better' than the massed ranks of day-to-day contributors. [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup> 13:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
#While I understand that there are some positives to PC, I think Wikipedia is better without it. Blocking and protection has worked find for a very long time so will continue to be a suitable way of solving this. Wikipedia's openness is a major feature that we all love, removing it would be an insult. Overall, I am highly against this. [[User:Jwikiediting|Jwikiediting]] ([[User talk:Jwikiediting|talk]]) 15:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 133:
# '''Endorse'''. I believe this goes against the principle and spirit of Wikipedia. Pending Changes would, in my opinion, go against what made Wikipedia great in the first place. [[User:FrostytheSnownoob|FrostytheSnownoob]] ([[User talk:FrostytheSnownoob|talk]]) 08:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse'''. Keep it simple. The immediate feedback is what makes this work. [[User:Stevei|Stevei]] 17:58, 5 MAY 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse'''. Pending changes was an unmitigated failure. People have grown to understand the wiki system, and the risk of vandals. In the end, it's a feature, not a bug. --<small><span style="border:1px solid orange;background:#A6D785">[[User:AKMask|<font size="1" color="#9E0508">
# Agree with comment above, "This goes against the very spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia would not be the "Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit" but the "Encyclopedia that can only be Edited if Someone Else Supports your Edit"."[[User:Energythief|Energythief]] ([[User talk:Energythief|talk]]) 14:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
#Not until this reviewer "right" can be taken away from administrators just as easily as it will undoubtedly be taken away from regular editors. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 20:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 140:
# '''Endorse.''' This may sound like a good idea at first sight, but it doesn't work well where it is in use in other languages (changes may take months to be accepted), and in practice it serves no useful purpose. In the very small proportion of pages where there is a need for something of the sort, this need is already addressed by semi-protection. [[User:Лудольф|Лудольф]] ([[User talk:Лудольф|talk]]) 08:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse #1.''' There is really next to no benefit to the pending changes system. It focuses more power in the hands of a few, violating the fundamental spirit of Wikipedia. The inevitable delay in updating pages that benefit from "near-live" updates in respect of current events, sporting results and the like will have an overall negative impact on Wikipedia far in excess of the problem of small sporadic outbreaks of vandalism, for which the existing semi-protection and full protection are more than adequate in almost every circumstance. If there are articles that would benefit from additional editor patrols, a WikiTaskForce could take care of this without any problem without fundamental changes. [[User:Dybeck|Dybeck]] ([[User talk:Dybeck|talk]]) 12:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' Huge problems, and it really doesn't do anything that is needed. Makes a confusing problematic mess out of editing. Kill it 100% Sincerely,<
#'''Endorse''' per SoWhy; fundamentally backwards. [[User:Arbitrarily0|<span style='color:black'><b><u><i><big>A</big>rbitrarily<big>0</big></i></u></b></span>]] <sup><b>([[User talk:Arbitrarily0|<span style="font-variant: small-caps; color:#FF4500;">talk</span>]])</b></sup> 13:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' per Casliber and OSborn. [[User:Lesgles|Lesgles]] <small>([[User_talk:Lesgles|talk]])</small> 18:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 155:
#'''Endorse''' I spend much of my time here dealing with the enormous wave of vandalism that occurs every day on Wikipedia and so I generally support more tools to address this issue. However, Pending Changes does little to stop vandalism, puts drastic bars in the face of legitimate contributors, and imposes an insanely complicated system in front of what is supposed to be a very simple concept: an encyclopedia anyone can edit. A great deal of constructive contributions come from unregistered and new users. (Everyone was unregistered once!) Finally, Option 2 is still simply too vague to constitute a meaningful policy and is simply a restoration of the old status quo of the never-ending trial period. We need stronger tools to more directly address vandalism rather than trying to sweep it under the rug with PC and protection.[[User:Zachlipton|Zachlipton]] ([[User talk:Zachlipton|talk]]) 00:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' position 1. It would overly bureaucratizes the system - it would protect from outright vandalism, but would alienate editors because editors ´would have to review all pending edits before their own edit becomes visible. Worse, it would likely alienate careful editors more than others: sometimes it can be tricky to perform a correct and thorough review (for example if the last edit has an inline reference which is not available online), therefore editors who really want to push a further edit into the article may tend review and accept overly generously, whereas more conscientious editors would be discouraged from editing if they feel unable to appropriately review the previous edit. So it could deter especially the careful editors from improving an unreviewed article. And it would not protect at all from purposely introduced bias or other abuse of Wikipedia. --[[User:Chris Howard|Chris Howard]] ([[User talk:Chris Howard|talk]]) 18:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' pos. 1 - This will add unnecessary complexity and discourage new editors. [[User:MadGeographer|<
#'''Endorse position 1.''' 1) PC forces all editors with reviewer status to review all pending changes before editing. This is an impediment to editing. 2) Per 12 Victor Yus and 24 Isarra.{{unsigned|Wikimedes}}
#'''Endorse''' I have opposed Pending changes in the past, and I still do. It's a fundamentally bad idea. [[User:Manxruler|Manxruler]] ([[User talk:Manxruler|talk]]) 21:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''. --[[User:Toccata quarta|Toccata quarta]] ([[User talk:Toccata quarta|talk]]) 14:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' per GorillaWarfare. Well said. [[User:Nomader|<span style="color:#007FFF">Nomader</span>]] ([[User talk:Nomader|<span style="color:#007FFF">talk</span>]]) 16:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''. I thought this was the free encyclopedia that anybody could edit. [[User:Matt Yeager|<b><
#'''Endorse'''. To quote O'Hare from the 2012 movie The Lorax: "''Let it die! Let it die! Let it shrivel up and - come on, whose with me?''" [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 01:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
Line 180:
#I can appreciate the appeal of more granular editing privileges and PC has some clear advantages over the current use of edit requests. That said, the current incarnation of PC is a nightmare for a laundry list of reasons detailed above and I don't think it can be salvaged. I believe that the deployment of PC on large portions of the wiki, a possibility that a few editors are excited about, would be nothing short of disastrous. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 17:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''--The PC system is draconian, complicated, frustrating, and will only serve to repel rather than attract new editors.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 13:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
#I think that with the page protection system already in use is enough. Some pages in Wikipedia have a high amount of edits per hour, so reviewing each edit is a hard task. We're only 90,000 active users against millions of unregistered editors plus the registered ones. So, it'll make a mess more that fixing the problems. --[[User:Hahc21|<
#'''Endorse''' I trust those people wanting to introduce this system will spend their time operating it - I predict a log-jam, frustration and other tasks being overlooked. [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] ([[User talk:Arjayay|talk]]) 17:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:MeegsC|MeegsC]] | [[User talk:MeegsC|Talk]] 01:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''' We have a similar PC system in the german Wikipedia and it's better without it. Also people who don't edit wikipedia yet but thinking about doing their part will get problems wirh that and it will disattract a lot of potential new editors. -- [[User:Laberkiste|Laber□]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Laberkiste|T]]</sup> 02:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' per [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]], [[User:Wnt|Wnt]], [[User:DGG|DGG]], [[User:WDGraham|W. D. Graham]], and [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]], as well as per the past discussions. I additionally reaffirm that this tool is inefficient and counterproductive, that its deployment would inevitably dissuade new and anonymous editors from participating, that its handling has repeatedly violated the community's trust, and that we should never stand for any proposal designed to undermine core principles of the project. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C M B J'''''</span>]] </span> 11:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
#At first sight, it seems to be a good initiative to protect good articles from persistent vandalism. But there are thousands of articles that require further edits to get improved? How did Wikipedia grow up so soon? Only because people here can think themselves as the part of an encyclopedia as they can edit and add info from anywhere anytime and they can see their edits instantly displayed. Hence they feel motivated. Do you want Wikipedia to turn out to be [[Citizendium]]? In this age, people do not like hierarchy. If you can check pending changes, why don’t you make a list of new changes without keeping them pending? And then check them. If you find anything unreferenced, remove them. If you find anything that breaks Wikipedia policy, discuss. If you are so much concerned with the vandalism from unregistered users, then make sure that no unregistered user can edit Wikipedia. If you cannot trust them, how can they trust you? How will you make sure that all the administrators and reviewers would be unbiased and knowledgeable and they would not keep a change pending for its truthfulness? [[User:Smmmaniruzzaman|Smmmaniruzzaman]] ([[User talk:Smmmaniruzzaman|talk]]) 13:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' - Per Sandstein & SilkTork. Semiprotection is adequate. Pending Changes would add to the complexity of WP. Many novice IP editors would get discouraged and bail out. PC would add to the bureaucracy & hierarchy. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
#Per SoWhy and because I do not think the benefits are worth the extra layer of process complexity. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 21:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||