Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion

< Wikipedia:Pending changes | Request for Comment 2012
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 23 March 2012 (→Arguments against Position #2: Metrics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussion

Arguments against Position #2

In bulleted format, each bullet signed, for ease of threading.

  • "During and after the trial, PC was shown to be an extremely helpful tool for combatting bad-faith edits while still allowing easy submission of good-faith edits." I do not buy this argument as it relies on the same basic (psycho)logical fallacy that all PC/FR is predicated on, i.e. that every reviewer is knowledgeable about the subject and not a Knight Templar, not to mention it ignores the fact that not all bad-faith edits are obviously so, and those that are not can very easily slip by an unknowledgeable reviewer (of which there shall be many per topic. Not everyone is omniscient). How does this get addressed? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Support PC, especially on BLPs to prevent defamation." Last time I calculated number of reviewers with number of BLPs I got a result of 65 articles to one reviewer, which is unworkable logistically. I would imagine the number has only since increased due to there being less active users and more BLPs. Given that BLPs tend to be edited rather frequently how can one address this fundamental flaw? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who says that it has to be used on every single BLP article? "Especially on BLPs" does not automatically equate to "please use PC on every single BLP". Why can't we use it on 1% or 2% of them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[...]seems like a perfect mid-way point between page protection and open editing. It will help IPs Be bold and fix our mistakes, even on controversial pages." It will not because controversial pages are generally universally-vandalized in the first place or otherwise difficult to edit. George W. Bush and Barack Obama both were put on PC during the trial and had to be removed from it because the volume of edits was too much. How can you reconcile this point with the actual reality of the matter? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a community, we should welcome with open arms anything that offers a solution to our problems of vandalism without totally shutting out new and unregistered editors." Part of the issue is that new editors already feel shut out because of the perceived air of elitism in the place. Adding another userright that amounts in several peoples' minds to "censor" does not help add editors; it helps drive them away. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The minor problems encountered in the trial did not demonstrate the unworkability of the system; instead they demonstrated that it basically did work." By what metrics? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the metrics that have been collected? For example, did you know that PC permitted us to benefit from more than 200 good edits from unregistered users per day during the initial trial, all of which happened on articles that had previously been semi-protected? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012/Discussion&oldid=483611278"