Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:50, 12 May 2012

Revision as of 06:06, 13 May 2012

Line 23:

# '''Endorse'''. The suggested changes to Wikipedia conflict with the entire principal of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, as these policies are they will make Wikipedia even ''more'' complicated and will create a larger gap between the general userbase and the admins. It would be nice to have a review-type process for oft-vandalized articles, however; I get very tired of reverting articles like [[The Legend of Zelda]]. [[User:Chevsapher|Chevsapher]] ([[User talk:Chevsapher|talk]]) 01:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

#'''Comment''': I originally supported the idea (see #200 above <s>"Support with caveat — I think, overall, it's a good thing, however, those in Position 3 have exceptionally valid points that still need to be addressed, e.g., users Tryptofish and Wizardman</s>"), but after continuing to read comments and having a further think on it, I un!voted, striking my response. I believe the problems it will introduce without addressing the points made in this section will create a wikiwar, if not several. I still think it's a good idea, but the demons are all in details that haven't yet been addressed: it needs more baking time as it's still not cooked. &mdash; [[User:Sctechlaw|Sctechlaw]] ([[User talk:Sctechlaw|talk]]) 05:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

#'''Endorse'''. Fighting vandalism is good; no one's denying that. I think many editors lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia (pillar #1), and ought to be reader-centered, not editor centered. If Pending Changes helps the readers by better informing them or by keeping them from misinformation caused by vandalism, then it's a good thing. At the same time, Wikipedia is written by the editors, and most of them don't have special user rights. The thing is this: many users who have been around for several years (over three in my case), and who don't have special user rights will now have copious restrictions put in place when it comes to editing pages. What this well-intentioned policy does is take away editing privileges from the majority of well-behaved editors in the name of anti-vandalism; in a reactionary blitz against policy breakers, sockpuppets, trolls, and general malcontents. (This issue could be solved by creating another user access level, alongside of reviewer, to coincide with the Pending Changes policy, but that's a discussion fro another day.) Additionally, several questions remain unanswered. Which pages receive PC protection? Will there be community input into the discussion of which pages receive PC protection? How long will the edit approval process take? Will there be administrators or bots on hand for even the most obscure of protected pages? Simply put, the policy, as it stands, is too incomplete to be implemented. It is a fundamentally good idea, but to full of holes to be implemented at this present time. [[User:Buffalutheran|Buffalutheran]] ([[User talk:Buffalutheran|talk]]) 06:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]