[Wikipedia-l] Semi-protection

Mon Nov 13 02:16:30 UTC 2006

On 11/12/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 11/13/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I believe it's been brought up to use an edit-approval program where new
> > accounts would have to get their edits approved if they're new -- this would
> > be in place of semiprotection.
>
> I oppose this. It undermines the assumption of good faith, whereas S-P
> is specifically used on pages that have a record of vandalism.

The ability to edit competently, accurately, and in conformity with
our standards (NPOV, BLP, TDMTLAOMG, etc) is a totally orthogonal
matter with a persons interest in editing with good intentions.  Some
of the most harmful problem material which I've seen inserted into
Wikipedia was inserted with good intentions.

Recognizing the contributions of very new contributors as needing a
higher degree of vetting than contributions from known and established
members of community isn't a failure to assume good faith, it is
actually an honest acceptance of the real challenges which face our
projects.

The ideal form for this additional vetting is no where near as clear
as the need for it, of course.

Personally, I've always been in favor of changes which reduce the
exposure of completely unchecked material to the general public who is
generally unaware and disinterested in the internal operation of
Wikipedia.  There are a number of people who oppose this notion, but I
wonder if their tune will change after the first highly publicized
death which can be linked back to obviously incorrect information in
Wikipedia.

> It makes more sense to expand the protection model to allow for
> auto-expiry (as well as automatic labeling of protected pages).

Without seeing some data on the current distribution of semiprotection
lifetimes, I couldn't comment on the usefulness of automatic
de(semi-)protection.  I looked at protection lifetimes some time ago
(back when folks like Tony Sidaway were around and diligent with
removing old protections) and we looked like we were doing pretty
well.