Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Abyssinia H (talk | contribs) m →Position #1: actually sign my own comment, since I'm stupid that way... |
restored chronological order to comments |
||
Line 6:
;Users who endorse this position
#While I understand that there are some positives to PC, I think Wikipedia is better without it. Blocking and protection has worked find for a very long time so will continue to be a suitable way of solving this. Wikipedia's openness is a major feature that we all love, removing it would be an insult. Overall, I am highly against this. [[User:Jwikiediting|Jwikiediting]] ([[User talk:Jwikiediting|talk]]) 15:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)▼
#I am strongly opposed to PC as I think it changes the character of Wikipedia, and it is illogical expansion of Wikipedia's bureaucracy. Wikipedia's growth has occurred because of its open and egalitarian edit structure where very few articles cannot be editted by an autoconfirmed user. Now, there will be far more articles that a regular user will not be able to edit without going through a reviewer. I see a situation where certain articles will become dominated by a few reviewers, and the articles will become highly biased and impossible to modify. There will be a drop off of newer users who are dissatisfied with the inability to enact changes to any high-profile article. Furthermore, the creation of two new protection levels, and a new class of users (i.e., reviewers) is totally unnecessary. A far simpler proposal would be to ban anonymous IP edits (i.e., require registration), and to strictly enforce rules against [[WP:vandalism|vandalism]], [[WP:EW|edit warring]], [[WP:TE|tendentious editting]], etc. [[User:Dwainwr123|Debbie W.]] 03:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC) ▼
#While I do understand the benefits of PC and why people support it, I still believe that any PC/FR-style protection is against the fundamental principles of the project, in that there should no difference between editors (except such differences that are unavoidable) and that everyone should be able to edit equally (while semi-protection for example blocks IPs, those users can easily get the status that allows them to edit regardless - PC on the other hand would restrict editing in those cases to a small group of users). I also think that the PC trial showed that this is a kind of "power" that a number of admins do not grasp correctly and I fear that PC will lead to further problems with incorrect usage and problems with anon / new users being scared away by overzealous "reviewers" who use their new-found "powers" to reject valid edits they don't agree with. Imho the problems of any tool that allows one group of users to decide which edits of other users are valid without discussion by far outweigh the benefits. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="color: #7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color: #474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]]''' 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
#That's pretty much it. I get the idea and all, but it just didn't work out. <font color="#FFB911">'''[[User:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:10pt; color:gray">Rcsprinter</span>]]''' [[User talk:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:8pt; color:black">(orate)</span>]]</font> 20:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Line 125 ⟶ 123:
# Per my experiences both as an en.wiki reviewer and on the German Wikipeida as an IP, where my beneficial changes (including the removal of personal information/email addressed) sat ignored for almost a week. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<font color="blue">Them</font>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<font color="red">From</font>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<font color="black">Space</font>]]''' 02:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' Pending Changes will only speed up the decline of editors, encourage smaller, less constructive edits to large projects, and maintain the position of a limited few editors as somehow 'better' than the massed ranks of day-to-day contributors. [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup> 13:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
▲#While I understand that there are some positives to PC, I think Wikipedia is better without it. Blocking and protection has worked find for a very long time so will continue to be a suitable way of solving this. Wikipedia's openness is a major feature that we all love, removing it would be an insult. Overall, I am highly against this. [[User:Jwikiediting|Jwikiediting]] ([[User talk:Jwikiediting|talk]]) 15:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
#[[User:Arcandam|Arcandam]] ([[User talk:Arcandam|talk]]) 17:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' The current protection scheme is more than reasonable. PC, by comparison, would create an unreasonable situation for both reviewers and editors due to backlogs and neglect. I am sure that this system will lead to some edits taking a week or more to be approved, which will only serve to drive away editors. I also don't buy the argument that PC could be relaxed on some articles if there is a community consensus. How many good faith editors would have to suffer first? Contributions should be valued equally and judged later. [[User:Lithium6ion|Lithium6ion]] ([[User talk:Lithium6ion|talk]]) 03:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' This is destroying one of the strongest and most attractive tenets of Wikipedia; the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. While understandably, abuse has hampered Wikipedia before, I do not believe any amount of vandalism should cause us to close some doors; if anything, vandalism should merely spur us to be more vigilant, rather than hide like a turtle in its shell. [[User:Orpherebus|With all due respect, Orpherebus.]] ([[User talk:Orpherebus|talk]]) 06:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
▲#I am strongly opposed to PC as I think it changes the character of Wikipedia, and it is illogical expansion of Wikipedia's bureaucracy. Wikipedia's growth has occurred because of its open and egalitarian edit structure where very few articles cannot be editted by an autoconfirmed user. Now, there will be far more articles that a regular user will not be able to edit without going through a reviewer. I see a situation where certain articles will become dominated by a few reviewers, and the articles will become highly biased and impossible to modify. There will be a drop off of newer users who are dissatisfied with the inability to enact changes to any high-profile article. Furthermore, the creation of two new protection levels, and a new class of users (i.e., reviewers) is totally unnecessary. A far simpler proposal would be to ban anonymous IP edits (i.e., require registration), and to strictly enforce rules against [[WP:vandalism|vandalism]], [[WP:EW|edit warring]], [[WP:TE|tendentious editting]], etc. [[User:Dwainwr123|Debbie W.]] 03:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Absolute Endorse''' Good changes often get slowed down by this - especially on pages with little experts. [[User:Overmage|Overmage]] ([[User talk:Overmage|talk]]) 06:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Strong Endorse ''' Agree with comment above, "Pending Changes would, I believe, make Wikipedia more authoritarian and less democratic." [[User:Darrell Greenwood|Darrell_Greenwood]] ([[User talk:Darrell Greenwood|talk]]) 03:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||