Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Davdevalle (talk | contribs) |
→Position #1: Endorse |
||
Line 173:
# Absolutely, unequivically no. It is hard enough to find and keep editors without removing one of the few things (the satisfaction of editing and gratification of immediate publication) that works in that regard. A phrase about cracking walnuts with tanks springs to mind... [[User:Meetthefeebles|Meetthefeebles]] ([[User talk:Meetthefeebles|talk]]) 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' Keep it as it is. The negative effect of a structural hierarchy of reviewers destroys the ethos of the project. It becomes edited by a few instead of edited by all.[[User:Davdevalle|Davdevalle]] ([[User talk:Davdevalle|talk]]) 14:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' Pending changes is ideologically wrong for Wikipedia. It means that the vast majority of editors will be restricted from editting sensitive articles (e.g., BLP). Wikipedia has become the lead online encyclopedia because of its open structure. Unless we've decided that it's time for Wikipedia to stop growing, and instead enter a maintenance phase, PC must be rejected. NJ Wine 21:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||