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

Revision as of 13:54, 14 May 2012

Revision as of 19:18, 15 May 2012

Line 168:

#'''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)

# '''Endorse Position #1''': I agree with the stated position: the negative aspects outweigh the positive. I've seen this in action on some pl.wp pages and it seems to be confusing and discourages editing IMHO. I suspect that PC might be related to part of an anti-wiki backlash - there's too much danger to authoritarian organisations of losing too much control over knowledge distribution, and PC might offer a way to bog down Wikipedia and wikis in general by legal challenges over editorial responsibility and by encouraging internal struggles over editorial control that distract from the main issue of article content. I'm not suggesting that individual Wikipedians in favour of PC are trying to support authoritarian organisations - the pressure from authoritarian organisations should be expected as a systematic effect - partly through secret, offline pressure on WMF Board members, partly through indirect pressure on Wikipedians, through mainstream media misrepresenting the nature of wikis and the responsibilities of ''readers'' to judge the quality of the information they read. [[User:Boud|Boud]] ([[User talk:Boud|talk]]) 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)