[WikiEN-l] New York Times article

Wed Jun 21 21:31:01 UTC 2006

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:46:04 +0100, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

>There is. Long term semi protection really only hits a very small
>number of subjects. The number of subjects that enough people feel
>strong about to cause a problem is unlikely to increase.

But before there was only protection, which was a blunt instrument and
caused significant pain.  Now there is sprotection which allows most
editors to go about their business so there is much less resistance to
its use; it is not a surprise that it is used to prevent spates of
short-term drive by vandalism, where previously we just put up with
the pain and kept reverting.  

Even then articles like Safety, a constant target for IP vandalism, do
not remain protected for long because the protected log is watched by
a number of admins who make it their business to keep protection
periods down to sensible levels.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG