Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Discussion: Some counterarguments |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 6:
*"During and after the trial, PC was shown to be an extremely helpful tool for combatting bad-faith edits while still allowing easy submission of good-faith edits." I do not buy this argument as it relies on the same basic (psycho)logical fallacy that all PC/FR is predicated on, i.e. that every reviewer is knowledgeable about the subject and not a Knight Templar, not to mention it ignores the fact that not all bad-faith edits are obviously so, and those that are not can very easily slip by an unknowledgeable reviewer (of which there shall be many per topic. Not everyone is omniscient). How does this get addressed? —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
*"Support PC, especially on BLPs to prevent defamation." Last time I calculated number of reviewers with [[:Category:Living people|number of BLPs]] I got a result of 65 articles to one reviewer, which is unworkable logistically. I would imagine the number has only since increased due to there being less active users and more BLPs. Given that BLPs tend to be edited rather frequently how ''can'' one address this fundamental flaw? —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
**Who says that it has to be used on every single BLP article? "Especially on BLPs" does not automatically equate to "please use PC on every single BLP". Why can't we use it on 1% or 2% of them? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
*"[...]seems like a perfect mid-way point between page protection and open editing. It will help IPs [[WP:Be bold|Be bold]] and fix our mistakes, even on controversial pages." It will not because controversial pages are generally universally-vandalized in the first place or otherwise [[WP:Discretionary sanctions|difficult]] [[WP:Edit war|to]] [[WP:The Truth|edit]]. [[George W. Bush]] and [[Barack Obama]] both were put on PC during the trial and '''had to be removed from it because the volume of edits was too much.''' How can you reconcile this point with the actual reality of the matter? —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
*"As a community, we should welcome with open arms anything that offers a solution to our problems of vandalism without totally shutting out new and unregistered editors." Part of the issue is that new editors already feel shut out because of the perceived air of elitism in the place. Adding another userright that amounts in several peoples' minds to "censor" does not help add editors; it helps drive them away. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
| |||