Even if the restrictions are minor, any level of separation between
anons and regular users does have social consequences: it's a barrier,
if a permeable one, and it will effect how many people join wikipedia
(and what types of people), how users treat outsiders, etc.
Semiprotection is necessary, but we shouldn't pretend it's
inconsequential. (Hey, maybe those consequences are /good/, like
encouraging people to create accounts and become invested in the
project. And maybe they're not.)
On 6/25/06, mboverload <mboverload(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/22/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Anyway, the more I consider the facts, the less
convinced I am. The
problem is in the interpretation of "anyone can edit". Does it mean
"anyone who wants to edit, can", or does it mean "anyone at all can
edit". Normally this wouldn't matter, but it's critical if we're
attempting to measure "anyone-can-edit-ness" (ACEN).
Anyone can drive on the public roads. Of course you need a licence and need
to know the rules of the road. It's just common sense, we don't need to
fine-tune it.
The problem is that semi-protection lasts longer
than full protection, as a rule, so that in
general this comparison is
far from true.
What, they can't wait 4 days to edit an article that's a huge source of
vandalism - yet they can still edit the other 99.999% of articles? Boohoo.
mboverload
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog -
http://wikip.blogspot.com