Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:43, 23 March 2012

Revision as of 21:19, 23 March 2012

Line 10:

#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. '''''<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]</font>''''' 20:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

#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. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> ^{<small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small>} 21:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

<!-- 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 -->