[WikiEN-l] New York Times article

Tue Jun 20 22:56:21 UTC 2006

Lord Voldemort wrote:
> On 6/20/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/20/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at 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