I want to make a serious proposal about the handling of problem pages. As we all know, there are some pages which appear to be destined to be battlegrounds forever. Many of the Middle-Eastern pages are in this category. Contrary to what we would like, such pages do NOT eventually settle into an acceptable state. What actually happens is that the current set of contestants get tired then the article remains dormant (often in a fairly appalling state) for a while until a new set of contestants come along and start the war up again. In this process, excellent portions of the article inevitably become lost or distorted and there is nearly always some arrant nonsense present. The article does NOT steadily get better over time but just oscillates between several degrees of poverty. What I'm saying is that our current model DOES NOT WORK AND WILL NEVER WORK for some types of pages. Therefore, we have to change the model. I propose that for particularly problematic topics there are two versions. One is the "official version" which is write-protected. The official version is what readers get when they click on links. The other is the "draft version", which can be editted. Then there is some standard procedure (a committee?) by which the draft version can be copied to the official version. This is better than the present system of page protection because it does not freeze page development. It allows additions and variations to be tried out and fought over off-line, then draft editions achieving some amount of consensus can be made official. The average quality of the article as seen by outsiders would be greatly improved. Anyway, please consider it or improve on it. Zero. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus