On 6/20/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
wrote:
But, yes, it is absolutely not possible for me to
claim credit for
semi-protection. It is a brilliant innovation that allows us to be more
open than before, when we only had the tool of protection. But it is
not my innovation, and I do not know who first thought of it.
A quick note that might clear up some confusion on my part: what do you mean
by "more open" here? What's the metric?
He means that disputed articles that would have had to have been fully
protected, can now be semiprotected. That way more people (not just
admins) can edit the article, while potentially culling the problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong. --LV
That's right. But I also fully agree with Cunctator's point (if I
understand him) that not every case of allowing more people to edit
would count as "more open". For example, if we had a rule that "Only
Jimbo is allowed to edit this article" then this would be a lot LESS
open than "no one is allowed to edit this article".
Openness refers not only to the number of people who can edit, but a
holistic assessment of the entire process.
I like processes that cut out mindless troll vandalism while allowing
people of diverse opinions to still edit. Those are much better than
full locking.
--Jimbo