Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 334:
: I think you are viewing this a little to much as "a means to control", and to little as "a solution to a problem". The concerns you raise regarding the acceptance of edits are definitely valid, but is the current situation really that different from the situation afterwards? A few editors can technically gang-up and edit war an article to a preferred state or clog any discussion with a mass of red tape in order to maintain their preferred version. Pending changes won't really change this that much.
: No, the real change that PC would bring is that there would be some way to allow editors to edit a normally inaccessible page. At times a page simply needs to be [[WP:PROT|protected]], and while this works it is a bit akin to carpet bombing al (new) editors who may actually be working productively. Were PC to be used it would allow those users to edit. That being said PC is not some kind of tool that is to be used liberally. Instead, it should only be used when there is a valid reason to place it, and those reasons (as far as i am concerned) are the same as the reasons that would otherwise result in the aforementioned carpet bombing of the same page. [[User:Excirial|<
::You seem to be making the same error of reasoning (I assume it to be an error, since people go strangely quiet when they're asked to confirm that they know what they're on about) as several other PC supporters here. You say PC would "allow editors to edit a normally inaccessible page". In one sense of the word "edit", yes. But in the more meaningful sense (i.e. the ability to change the public Wikipedia article with immediate effect), PC actually has (compared with semi-protection) the reverse effect; it can ''prevent'' editors from editing a normally ''accessible'' page. Given that even the more (presumably) informed supporters of PC seem not to have realized this basic fact, one wonders how many of the drop-by-and-vote supporters are aware of it. And consequently how much validity can be attached to this vote, given that many users are at least partly unaware of what they are voting for.--[[User:Victor Yus|Victor Yus]] ([[User talk:Victor Yus|talk]]) 06:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
::: Your comment is somewhat vague, so i fear i have to guess what you are referring to. Seeing your comment a bit further up I gamble that you are referring to a hypothetical case where a page is protected PC protection level 1? And in specific a situation where an unreviewed edit has been made (but not accepted), while a confirmed user subsequently edits the page? And i assume that the concern is that the edit made by the confirmed user is not visible immediately and has to be reviewed, whereas it would be visible immediately when the page would have been protected trough a semi protection instead? [[User:Excirial|<
::::Correct. [[User:Victor Yus|Victor Yus]] ([[User talk:Victor Yus|talk]]) 15:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
::::: Ok granted, that is a valid concern and it is indeed something i considered as well. What i personally believe is that PC1 and PC2 are just another two tools in the vandalism-prevention belt, and like every tool they have their strengths and weaknesses. In some cases you would therefor use a specific tool while evading another ones like the plague as they are not effective, cumbersome or otherwise inappropriate. PC1 is ideal for situations where there is a mix between good and bad faith new editors, since semi protection would effectively cancel out both sets. Of course the situation above is unfortunate, but if PC1 is applied ''correctly'' the benefit of allowing everyone to edit should outweigh the drawback for confirmed users. And of course, there should not be a great deal of protected pages in the first place. As proposal 2 says: "As with other forms of protection, PC should not be used preemptively." [[User:Excirial|<
::::::I agree that this is about weighing up pluses and minuses and appreciate that people might weigh them differently, but I'm still not persuaded that the "benefit of allowing everyone to edit" really outweighs the drawback I've pointed out (and I don't think the voters have properly been made aware of that drawback, which means they will not have done the weighing at all). When you say "allowing everyone to edit" you really only mean allowing them to ''submit'' edits using a more convenient interface (and not actually to make changes); and notice too that the text that they are allowed to "edit" will often not correspond to the article as they see it, which must surely be confusing. Add this to the inevitable increased bureaucracy and time-wasting squabbles about who should and should not be allowed to be a reviewer, and the many resolutely unanswered questions about how the policy is supposed to operate, and I'm still getting more minuses than pluses over the whole scheme.--[[User:Victor Yus|Victor Yus]] ([[User talk:Victor Yus|talk]]) 09:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Line 379:
:::::::::: The ru.wp FR flag is also given out by admins after a public discussion. It is all up to the community.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 17:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::: More barriers like admin approval, less people are available to check the revisions. According to [[:ru:Special:Statistics]], there are 850,222 articles and 12,468 active users on the Russian Wikipedia, and by [[:ru:Special:ValidationStatistics]], there are still 111,355 outdated articles (most of them having over several dozen pending revisions) for the attention of a total of 1289 reviewers (including admins). The average review time is 168 days, with extreme cases going over 750 days (for example, [[:ru:Индекс автомобильных номеров России|ru:Vehicle registration plates of Russia]] currently has 138 unchecked revisions which are pending review since October 2010). I fail to understand how English Wikipedia is supposed to perform substantially better with 20 times as much registered users, 12 times as much active users, 10 times as much total edits, 5 times as much articles, and only 5 times as much reviewers and administrators, according to [[Special:Statistics]]. --[[User:DmitryKo|Dmitry]] <sub>([[User talk:DmitryKo|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/DmitryKo|contibs]])</sub> 23:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Just in case - you are aware that PC on en.wiki isn't intended to be applied to every single article we have? And that it is instead a tool to complement our current [[WP:PROT|protection policy]] by providing an alternative to either semi or fully protecting an article? Only a fraction of the 4 million article's we have is protected, and not every protection will be a PC variety. Even if we would decide to PC every single BLP we have we wouldn't even be close to the amount of protected pages the russian wiki has. [[User:Excirial|<
::::::::::::: Just to clarify: that's exactly how Russian Wikipedia currently uses PC. It's enabled on featured and other high-traffic articles, not all articles. [[User:Maryana (WMF)|Maryana (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Maryana (WMF)|talk]]) 22:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::: The "average review time" of 168 is for pages that are currently pending review. The percentile table gives a better view of what to expect for a typical edit (for anons at least). The former number gravitates towards outliers and is thus larger. In any case, a month is still ridiculous as a review time. '''[[User talk:Aaron Schulz|<font color="blue">Aar</font><font color="darkblue">on Sc</font><font color="black">hulz</font>]]''' 05:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||