Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Position #1: No. |
Rivertorch (talk | contribs) →Position #1: endorse |
||
Line 19:
#This tool is fundamentally in violation of the idea of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I am not convinced that our coverage is so great or our problems so immense that we need to change this foundational policy and make it more difficult for new users to edit. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 23:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#Absolutely not. I quietly watched the first trial from afar and saw no saving virtues in it whatsoever. Moreover, we'll no longer be able to call ourselves the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Lock Pending changes up and throw away the key. [[User:Evanh2008|Evanh2008]] ([[User talk:Evanh2008|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Evanh2008|contribs]]) 23:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#Pending changes has a cumberson interface, is confusing to use and unnecessarily complex to administer, has the potential to drive away clueful editors, and fails utterly to address the most serious content problems we are facing. More troubling, we are again putting the cart before the horse by considering resurrecting PC in the absence of any credible evidence that it is needed. Effective tools to combat persistent vandalism, BLP violations, and other unconstructive edits already exist, and they work well; other options have been identified but not actively considered. Unless it can be demonstrated that there is a serious, intractible problem that pending changes is uniquely capable of solving, let's not go down this road again. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 07:26, 25 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 -->
| |||