Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Position #1: +1 |
→Position #1: + |
||
Line 167:
#'''Endorse''' Pending changes is an invitation to bite the newcomers tool. Whatever its advantages, it is not good for the long-term health of Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs newcomers. It is already difficult enough with all the many templates people have created for different talks.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 19:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' If there is a problem with people vandalizing BLPs, they should be addressed by technological solutions that work in the background. I can envision doing a statistical analysis of the types of wording typically used by vandals, the time of day relative to the ___location of the IP address, and possibly the type of article and creating bots that bring these edits to people's attention. Also, perhaps the Foundation should consider hiring a couple people to do real monitoring. [[User:Speciate|Speciate]] ([[User talk:Speciate|talk]]) 07:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''', strongly. PC was a fundamentally bad idea to begin with and the trial period demonstrated why rather clearly. Wikipedia badly needs to attract new editors and to retain existing active editors. The PC feature would do significant damage to both. It will put-off and bewilder new editors and create a significant and completely unnecessary new burden on existing editors who have better things to do than sift through changes made by others. The trial period clearly showed that there is no type of pages for which PC would work well. For actively edited pages PC would just add to confusion and chaos and complicate things needlessly. For rarely edited pages PC would result in accumulation of pending edits that are not confirmed for a long time. Existing features such as semii-protection and full protection work better because they do not require significant workload overhead on existing users. If someone is really worried about overall qualifty controls for WP content, they should consider more radical solution that do not impose significant workload burdens on established users, such as, for example, disallowing any editing by IPs. That would be more honest and more effective than the PC charade. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 13:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||