'Re: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article' - MARC

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List: wikien-l
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales () wikia ! com>
Date: 2006年06月20日 22:56:21
Message-ID: 44987D15.2070408 () wikia ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Lord Voldemort wrote:
> On 6/20/06, The Cunctator <cunctator@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/20/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]