Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 21:
*:::::We agree that the point of PC is that the pages would otherwise be semiprotected. I don't follow the logic that, therefore, it is wrong to compare PC with semiprotection. Those are the two options for the pages we are talking about, and PC is only used on pages that could be (and would be) semiprotected anyway, so when deciding about the benefits of PC we should look at what would otherwise happen to the pages in question. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 20:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
*::::::If you're comparing edits by anon/new users between PC and semi, you're going to get positive results because of [[selection bias]] - semiprotected disallows edits by anon or new users. Thus, for a fair comparison, you have to compare it to unprotection, as PC is a middle ground between that and semiprotection. Thus, the arguments should support that PC is as effective as ''unprotection'' - the state closest in equivalence - in allowing users to edit. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 20:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
*:::::No, that seems like a false dichotomy. It's like saying that [[methadone]] would have to have as few side effects as no drugs at all in order for people to use it to replace heroin. In reality, when someone is already addicted, methadone is far better for them even if it is far worse than being clean. Similarly PC is much better than semiprotection and that is all that matters, because we are talking about articles that are semiprotected anyway. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 20:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
| |||