Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 17 March 2009

Details regarding this proposal are available here. Please note: This is for a two-month trial only. Discussion on comments · Support · Oppose · Neutral · Voting is evil

Discussion on comments

None yet.

Support

1. Support {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong support. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Cenarium (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
4. –Juliancolton 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong support. Opens Misplaced Pages up by augmenting (and ultimately I suspect, replacing) our existing protection tools, and gives a non-intrusive means to monitor our BLP violations specifically. How could I oppose such an expansive improvement to our open editing model? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support flagged protection and patrolled revisions, as long as most any established editor (something like 500+ constructive edits over a few weeks) can apply for gaining "reviewer" rights, unless there's some obvious reason why they shouldn't (e.g. a recent block), and as long as the patrolled revisions are basically unseen to the reader. I don't like the idea of having only "reviewed" or "sighted" version visible by default to users not logged in, but having flags that users can make use of to track an article's accuracy would be a great idea. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   As I understand it, the patrolled revisions are entirely passive - it won't affect the front page view, but will give a stream of revisions for us to check in the background, separate from the RC feed. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   Awesome. Then this is a Full support. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

7. Support a trial. I have reservations about flagged protection but let's see how it goes for a couple of months. Tempshill (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   What could be a problem with flagged protection? It doesn't look to me like it will restrict anything, really, just add more options to allow other users the chance to edit pages (with approval, for full protection or non-autoconfirmed users). –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   Don't worry about Tempshill's doubts unless he opposes the trial. Wanting proof that something works in practice is a natural reaction. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

8. Strong support - This clearly, for anyone that bothered to actually read it, allows more people to edit than the current system allows while also stepping up protection for articles which is beyond necessary for our BLPs at this point. لennavecia 17:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. I voted against the previous trial proposal, but this is good. Not perfect, but good. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Flagged protection offers better editing rights while still being able to protect our BLPs. Sceptre 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    Incidentally, I support the notion of enabling the surveyor right on this, which can edit/validate full-flagged pages immedately, and can (if it's not set up to do so automatically) promote people to reviewer. Sceptre 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

11. Support anything that moves us closer to a flagged system. -- Bastique 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support for the sixth time. How did Bullwinkle put it? Right. "This time, for sure! Presto!" - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. This is a step forward.--Pharos (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. I don't want full on flagged revisions for all of wikipedia, but have it like semi and full protection. Deavenger (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support excellent idea, will vastly improve the effectiveness of RC patrol and open up semiprotected pages without restricting the ability to edit pages. Hut 8.5 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Flagged protection is a bureaucratic disaster in the making which fundamentally undermines the contention that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There's no reason to bother going thru a "trial period" because it is a lousy idea. Furthermore, we just did a poll on this a few months ago where this idea was rejected. So why are we back here again? -- Kendrick7 17:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   When did we have a poll on Flagged protection? Are you sure you're not confusing this with Flagged Revisions? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   Flagged protection uses similar techniques, but it's very different in spirit from 'classic' flagged revisions. The purpose is to use a flag for pages meeting the requirements of the protection policy, instead of protecting them. It opens up Misplaced Pages, instead of closing it to editing. Patrolled revisions has no effect on the version viewed by readers and is merely an enhanced way to monitor pages, such as low-profile blps. Cenarium (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   What is the difference, really? Too many articles are left protected for too long as it is. This is just getting flagged revisions in by another means. It's even worse -- creating wishy-washy protection means real disputes will never get resolved because there will be no pressure to do so. -- Kendrick7 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   It means that everyone can contribute to more articles. If the protection policy applies, this shouldn't happen for longer than it does now, but in the intervening time, everyone, including IPs and newly registered users will be able to suggest edits. Nothing more extensive than that. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   It means many pages will simply remain locked in The Wrong Version essentially forever. Editors may already suggest consensus edits via {{edit protected}}. Why complicate a system that is already working well? -- Kendrick7 18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   Arguably because it isn't.  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose as unneeded bureaucracy and a dangerous step down the slippery slope towards a full-fledged version of flagged revisions. This nonsense must be stopped in its infancy. Articles should be edited in the now, not through a backlog. Flagged anything undermines the spirit of Misplaced Pages as a free-for-all encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose. It's been said already, but flagged revisions are not compatible with "the 💕 that anyone can edit". The practical effect will be that IP editors and casual readers are not allowed to fix gross errors (such BLP violations) on a flagged page without getting permission from the regulars, which could result in more damaging BLP violations sticking. Experience with new page patrol flags says this will immediately get backlogged; same deal. At the same time, the current proposal would exempt regulars from any inconvenience related to the proposal - cabalism that will be seen as such by outside editors. We've just been through the Obama incident, so it should be plain how easily we can be made vulnerable to assertions of such cabalism. Moreover, the assertion that this would reduce the amount of pages with editing restrictions is troubling doublespeak - flagged protection would surely be used mainly as a "solution" where actual protection is considered infeasible, leading to more restricted pages, not fewer. All in all, even a trial demonstration is likely to be harmful to the wiki. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   Comment: This isn't about flagged revisions... the "patrolled revisions" feature won't have any effect on a reader of Misplaced Pages. IP contributions to pages (as long as they aren't semi-protected) will be visible immediately. The only significant change is that it will be easier to patrol BLPs and other highly sensitive articles by having a list of edits to them in one place so that the changes can be reviewed. Having the list won't cause the edits not to show up until its reviewed. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Voting is evil