Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection page.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive1
  2. Archive2

This policy originated from a subpage in User:Raul654's user space.

Contents

[edit] Opinion on draft

The current policy draft seems to be much closer to what I would have envisaged were I a new user, (and oddly, almost the opposite of what was there before), and importantly adds in the need to protect templates and use semiprotection when there are few editors on revert patrol. I have no idea though whether this involves more work for admins, who presumably would be the people involved in doing such work. Perhaps it is worthwhile making sure there are people prepared to do this work, (or set up some sort of bot?) before we get too far with this policy. The other thing is have we convinced Raul654 that the change in policy is necessary? Because I'm guessing that as featured article editor, if he doesn't agree, we could have a fine time trying to get it implemented. Terri G 17:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the draft doesn't represent any more work for admins. Templates are already being protected based on the existing policy. Putting a semi-protect on an article arguably results in less admin work, since most vandal-fighting goes away. And, of course, the proposed policy doesn't require admins to do anything, it simply encourages (and empowers) them to use semi-protection more often.
As far as Raul654 goes, I too hope that he is convinced that a change in written policy is needed (actual practice has been changing; if it had not, this discussion would probably have ended long ago). But Raul654 doesn't own the MPA, as I think he'd be the first to say - once a new MPA is out, any admin can semi-protect (or unprotect) it. (For example, it's getting pretty common to move-protect it pretty early in its life.)
My major concern is we don't get wheel-warring where one admin puts semi-protection on and another promptly removes it. (In the seven days in December that the MPA was analyzed in depth, this happened at least once.) The proposed policy, if you will, is simply to move the tolerance level for semi-protection a bit. The policy change certainly doesn't mandate 24-hour semi-protection -- something I'd personally support, but also realize is much too significant a change to realistically have a chance of gaining anything resembling consensus. John Broughton | Talk 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the new draft policy is great and trust there will be little difficulty in getting consensus and publishing it. Is anyone working on the new template? That would seem to be on the critical path for moving this forward.--Paul 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I am not sure where to take this to next, but I support the current draft. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps what is going on at Wikipedia talk:Usurpation#Votes as explained at Wikipedia talk:Usurpation#Can't we just... is a good model. In other words, it time to ask for a show of hands (support, opposed, whatever)? (The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:How to create policy.) -- John Broughton | Talk 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Any movement on this? Gzkn 08:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) No. I think it's time for someone to try to bell the cat, so to speak. I'm thinking of posting the proposal widely (without spamming, of course), and asking for any final constructive suggestions for changes to it, and then moving forward with a formal expressing of support/oppose.

One reason I've held off is that I wanted to review (but haven't had the time) the MPAs between 8 December and (say) yesterday - what number of them were semi-protected? If there were only 2 or 3, it may be difficult for this proposal to become policy; if (say) 20 of them were semi-protected at one point or another during their 24 hours on the main page, then it could be easier. John Broughton | Talk 17:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, with that amount of vandalism being done, (as in the 7 day study), we should adopt the draft version of this policy, or just scrap it all together. (and rely on our semi-protection policy to guide us. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, we can still change the draft, but as it looks, we need to do something. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of templates used in featured articles

User:ProtectionBot and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProtectionBot might be of interest to those watching this page. It is an adminbot programmed to (among other things) protect the unprotected templates used on the daily featured article, and then unprotect the templates at the end of the day. Carcharoth 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like now as a result of it we have "Cascading" protection. 19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case studies of notable IP activity on main page featured articles

(Section addition: –Outriggr § 03:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Notable cases of IP vandalism

[edit] Notable cases of IP improvement

[edit] Specialized Main Page FA AntiVandalBot? / "Newbie edits" subpage?

I really don't know how helpful this would be, or how difficult to implement, but what if there were a bot running whose only purpose was to monitor the Featured Article of the day? Would that decrease the amount of time that the FA spent in a vandalized state? The bot could revert vandals as needed, or possibly even semi- or fully-protect the article for a short time if the vandalism hit a certain level.

I personally have a general bias against protecting articles. I was drawn into becoming a Wikipedia editor by the desire to fix the vandalism that I encountered. The ability to successfully do that felt incredibly empowering to me, and has kept my interest in helping and editing Wikipedia. I would hate to see that experience blocked off for future newcomers. While the main page FA does get vandalized quite frequently, I hope that we can think of other remedies than protecting the article.

If we absolutely have to protect the article (and this policy could be extended to all protected articles), I would recommend that some sort of "recommended edits" sub-page (separate from the regular talk page) be linked to from the protected article in question. The protection template placed at the top would have a prominent link to the sub-page, which is where anon and new users could post their edits. An editor could then scan that page for helpful edits and add them. If we do need to protect or semi-protect the page, let's give the newbies some feeling of empowerment.

Gosh, but I got wordy!--Aervanath 17:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like User:ProtectionBot already does part of what I had in mind. Could it be modified to fulfill the rest of my recommendation?--Aervanath 18:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think each and every problem here on the page could be solved by a software update that allows certain pages to wait three minutes or so before edits are allowed to go through. In the meantime a bot or admins could check for vandalism and page blanking, and cancel any vandalism before it even appears on the page. Mithridates 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Copied here by Rlevse from the Scouting talk page, soon after the article's main page exposure.

Can't article editing be temporarily restricted to people with usernames? --Jagz 17:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals are always a problem with the main page FA. I knew this would happen. Some feel like you and I that the mp FA should be protected, but others, lead by Raul654, do not feel so. There have been several debates about it. I always we should have to waste our time fighting the vandals, that it should be protected, but of course, no one cares about that, they think the vandals should be free to waste our time.Rlevse 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

After Eagle Scout went on the main page, I observed the next few main page articles. I guess I just needed to vent a bit, so I wrote User:Gadget850/MainPage. My experience is that if you convince an admin to semi-protect the page, another admin will come along and unprotect it and note Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, we shouldn't have to worry about it in the first place. More time and effort by all valid editors is spent fighting them than good is gained. New editors can simply move off the mainpage article to edit, it simply wouldn't be that big a deal. Rlevse 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversed vandalism on 06FEB2007, 12:37 EST I understand not what you say sir, but I will defend to the death your right to confuse me! 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is we shouldn't have to fight vandals. Wiki should not allow them, wiki is too nice to them, everyone should have a verified account, etc. Thanks for fighting these scum.Rlevse 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Rlevse has a point, but if we block the main page from new editors then it could drive away new editors, since that is the first page they see. And I have seen a few cases of new editors reverting the vandalism they see, always a good thing. But yes, it is a hassle, thankfully lots of people have it on their watch page. Darthgriz98 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ, how many of us had our first exposure to wiki via the mp fa? Few I suspect. Most people I know got to it by looking up info for school assignements, google hits on a topic of interest (my case), etc.Rlevse 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping we implement the German solution soon [1]. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention someone vandalizes and then a new person sees vulgar stuff of the mp fa...I'll believe the German solution here when I see. This issue is one reason Citizendium has been started, where accounts are required.Rlevse 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My two cents on vandalism is this: if a featured article is being vandalized repeatedly, it makes WikiPedia look bad. Case in point, when I first went to this article (after seeing it featured on the front page), I discovered that it will full of link spam. Had I been a first time visitor, I would have been put off by what I assumed was a lack of attention to the article. I'm just sayin'. --Douglas Muth 17:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But the point is Wikipedia is for everybody to edit, if the first thing you see when you click on the page to edit and you can't it defeats the purpose. Although, I hate vandalism just as much as the rest of us (especially personal attacks.) Then again, if they can semi-protect my userpage to stop vandalism, sometimes I wonder why they can't protect the main page. So I guess I just see both sides of the issue. Darthgriz98 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
FA should get much less attention judging by their article merit. But we are inviting vandals to ravage them. We are frustrating a lot of people here. Mandel 16:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you PLEASE protect this page from vandalism?Anon 11:50, 6 February 2007 (PDT)

A guy with an IP starting with "69" keeps vandalizing this page and vandalized the Super Bowl XLI page as well. I think that IP address should be blocked immediately. -Daniel Blanchette 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Wiki does not block editing from unregistered people on the main page continues to amaze me. This article was reduce to garbage before my eyes at least 3 times in a matter of minutes. I propose that anyone that is going to offer anything helpful will be willing to register, it is almost to a point where I have to confirm other sources to verify if anything on Wiki is actually valid. Arzel 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Nice to see some interest in this topic. The most recent discussion about this "disputed policy", for those interested, has taken place here: Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. I honestly think everyone who disputes the "never-protect" garbage should at least make a comment on that talk page (that's what my "petition" subpage was for, but I was told that consolidated expressions of interest are evil, and that mine was especially evil). –Outriggr § 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not really an honor to have an article that you worked on appear on the Main Page because if essentially exposes the people who have put in their time and effort on the article for free to harassment. An attitude that the article on the Main Page should not be protected from unregistered users is insulting and fails to consider the welfare of the people behind the article. If there was nobody behind these articles the featured article on the Main Page would consist of a photo of someone's buttocks or whatever else the vandals might come up with that day. --Jagz 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Proposal

As a newcomer to this page I ask two questions. One, why aren't all FA article semi-protected, and two, how can such a proposal be made feasible, via a standard guideline.

I give three brief reasons for FA article semi-protection. One, Belittling contributors' efforts. Contributors spend a sizeable proportion of their lifetime editing, writing and researching a FA Article. This time is not compensated in any form. Generally, an FA article is conceded to be a fairly well-researched piece of work. Would you throw your Masters thesis to the streets for punks? Doing what Wikipedia does now is to offer no respect for hard works done by editors. It places vandals, pranksters on the same level as a diligent writer.

Two, drives away quality contributors. Contributors are bound to be disappointed that their paintaking efforts could be so slipshoddily edited by anyone. Having spent like, say, 30 hrs of their lives scripting an article, they have to be convinced that any Tom, Dick or Harry may be qualified to rewrite them, after a panel judges it to be of high quality. Vandals are easily dealt with, but who has patience and 100 hrs to deal with a troll?

Three, wasting time and money of Wikipedian Foundation. Wikipedia is not Bill Gates's private treasury. It does not have endless funds. Every year so much money is donated to keep it running. We have a responsibility to utilize them in a socially responsible manner. This means not allowing people to vandalize quality articles. Vandalizing a back alley is not the same as breaking Taj Mahal or Michelangelo's David.

Semi-protection is an easy way to identify trolls, extremists, vandals and problem users. It costs nothing. A genuine user would certainly not think twice about registering. Almost every privately run website in the world requires some form of registration. Mandel 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by "Contributors are bound to be disappointed that their paintaking efforts could be so slipshoddily edited by anyone. Having spent like, say, 30 hrs of their lives scripting an article, they have to be convinced that any Tom, Dick or Harry may be qualified to rewrite them, after a panel judges it to be of high quality."- this has nothing to do with semiprotection. If an edit is good enough to be accepted on consensus, then it certainly isn't vandalism. Borisblue 09:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm advocating for FA semi-protection to guard against vandals etc. Semi-protection does make it easier to track errant editors and to prevent them from making NPOV or inaccurate edits to Wikipedia. A disfigured FA is much worse than anything else, IMO.Mandel 15:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding how can such a proposal be made feasible, via a standard guideline, the answer is that the reason this guideline is disputed is because of prior discussions that resulted in an alternate proposal: Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection/re-write. Note that the alternative proposal calls for making semi-protection easier, not mandatory; there simply is not enough support for the latter.
As for how to make this policy, see Wikipedia:How to create policy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The information a few sections above (December 1-7 analysis) is very persuasive. We are losing more (in the time of valuable contributors spending time reverting vandalism) than we are gaining (from actual positive edits from anonymous accounts). It is time to make it a policy that all Main Page FA's are to be semi-protected while they are on the main page. Johntex\talk 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Our time and money is not infinite, and yearly donation drives prove that. Vandal edits may be reverted, but at a cost. Admins regularly locked valuable contributors out by blocking a IP address; but comparatively, isn't semi-protection a much more effective way out. Maybe the German solution should be test-run on all FAs.Mandel 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Just watching yesterdays and todays featured article, I would have to say that I would not want to be an editor on a featured article the day it hits the main page. The volume of vandalism is enormous, and difficult to keep a top on. The editors of Californian Gold Rush let out a sigh of relief when the day was over. Many of the vandals appeared to have accounts set up specially for the fun. I say fully protect for the 24 hours, any serious editor will come back the next day. As someone said above, you just end up exhausting your volunteers. --Michael Johnson 02:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, more than that, I say that editors of a featured article deserve that 24 hours to sit back, enjoy a beer, and bask in the glory of their achievement. They shouldn't be run raggard by a bunch of vandals. --Michael Johnson 02:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
How abt this. For 24 hours edits will be accepted, but not immediately reflected. Then an admin weeds thru' the vandalisms. Aka a bit like the German solution. Sounds perfect to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mandel (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] German solution

I'm interested to hear how well the German solution is going. I only noticed it on the talk page when searching for another term, perhaps this proposal should be mentioned on the article page? Richard001 23:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA vandalism policy

Considering the weakness of current policy with regard to vandalism, perhaps a related policy for FA vandalism should be introduced. If we had a policy 'Any user who deliberately vandalizes a featured article on the main page shall be blocked for 24 hours' it would deter vandals, and there could also be a small warning message when editing the page similar to when editing older versions (e.g. 'You are editing today's featured article. Please ensure your contributions are neutral and verifiable. Edits considered to be vandalism by administrators will result in an instant 24 hour block').

Regardless of what policy is decided on, I believe we need to do something to make the main page FAs more secure and reliable for our readers and hard working contributors. Perhaps the German solution combined with tough anti-vandal policies could be this solution - this way anyone could still edit, the vandalism would never make the front page, and vandals would give up or be blocked before their edits would even be seen. Richard001 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thought

Given that our featured articles are selected for the main page a few days in advance of their intended appearence, would it be possible (or feasable for that matter) to design an AntiVandalBot with the sole mission of watching todays featured article and reverting any vandalism it catches? Considering that articles slated for appearance on the main page now have the intended date of display on the main page printed on their featured article template, and assuming that someone could design a bot capable of reading the date on the template and instructing the bot to watch that page for vandalism for the 24 hours it will be on the main page may help keep the pages managable without protecting the page. This, of course, is just an idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This still doesn't change the fact that it would muck up the FA's history, as well as being unable to block IPs who continually vandalize. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 02:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Disputedpolicy}}

I'm adding this back on, as I don't think anyone has replied to ideas about the draft mentioned about 3 weeks ago, and I still don't think the existing version is reflecting what I am seeing on this talk page. —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A poll should probably be taken before any thoughts of removing the disputed template. Richard001 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
m:polls are evil, in any case, we need to get back to the draft mentioned above, and work on a new writing of this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would help to move that draft over the current version? That is, if it has more support than the current version. I am not fully familiar with the issues here, but it may be a way forward. >Radiant< 09:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My own two cents...

I don't really think we should encourage new users to edit Featured Articles. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the problems this can cause in regards to WP:BITE, but my rationale is simple. Per the assessment scale a Featured Article is of a quality which means "No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible."

While I do believe that no article can truly be definitively complete (there will always be one sentence which can be improved, one phrase which can be made more precise), if these articles are being described as Wikipedia's best why are we encouraging their editing? These are not meant to display Wikipedia's strength by means of allowing anyone to edit them, but rather showing how good an article edited just by those willing to contribute can be! It should stand as an example, not a toy for newer people to try out.

Semi-protection makes sense, to me. While the edits by IPs can be beneficial, I'm inclined to point out that the 85% of edits constituting vandalism (or corrected vandalism) speak loudly enough. The changes to the text, while good, are comprised not just of IP users but registered users as well. Being a front page FA means that the articles are improved irrespective of their un-protected or semi-protected status.

I'm personally inclined to say semi-protection should be done for all FAs. They're good enough to be among Wikipedia's best, so we should take care. These articles are meant to represent the community and while we can't get rid of vandalism to these articles entirely, semi-protection for FAs would make these articles harder to damage and make those doing the damage more accountable for their actions. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to see more research done on FAs in terms of their time on the main page. How much of the editing is vandalism? How much of that comes from IPs? How do the major contributors feel about the time their articles spent on the main page - were they happy to have them there for people to edit or did they find the vandalism tiresome? How long, on average, did vandalism stay visible? How does the average editor feel about this policy? I'd like to do some research on it myself but I haven't really got time. If anyone is interested Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia is the place to coordinate this sort of research. Richard001 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Featured articles may be among Wikipedia's best, but they're definitely not perfect. I've seen featured articles with copyrighted images lacking fair use rationales (along with various other image problems a la Ian Thorpe, and there are generally copyediting problems that aren't noticed during a FAC. Whether or not these corrections come from IPs I can't say, but articles that appear on the Main Page always have room for improvement. ShadowHalo 01:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research into Vandalism on the FA of the day

Unless someone has already done this, I'm going to start researching the effect of blocking would have on the Featured article of the day by looking at the edit that were Vandalism, undoing Vandalism, and constructive edits. --Andrew Hampe Talk 02:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to check up on it, check my research page. --Andrew Hampe Talk 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And as for someone already doing so, I think it's been done, at least for anonymous IP edits - see Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles/December Main Page FA analysis, as is mentioned in sections above. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism. Simple.

Looking at the edit history for TFA, I see 16 vandalisms and 16 RVs in 50 edits. That means that there are 32 edits out of 50 that are related to vandalism. This is a MUCH higher then normal ratio. At the very least, I suggest that a sign be put on the top of the edit page for TFA that says that much higher consequences are in force for vandalising it. This, of course, should also be enforced. W1k13rh3nry 23:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Having read through the statistics of the December study I think we need to do something. Having vile vandalism in an article like Down Syndrome, during 10% of the time it was on display, not to mention template vandalism, is hardly acceptable. Higher penalties, editing restriction or some other option like requiring approval of IP edits, perhaps sorted by a bot, are some options. Going by the hard data, I think it's ridiculous to say IP editors contribute much more than puerile vandalism to articles, or that there isn't a problem with the level of vandalism. Richard001 00:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Are there any figures for the amount of time the vandalism remained on the page? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 01:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, there needs to be semi-protection on Main Page FAs. 144 minutes of vandalism for the Down syndrome article is too long. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 01:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An analogy for the question of semi-protection

Imagine you are ill and I am your doctor. I say to you, "Take these 10 pills. 8 of them will harm you, 1 will have no effect and 1 will cause a very slight but barely noticeable improvement in your condition." Would you take the pills? Then decide whether 1 edit leading to a very slight but barely noticeable improvement is worth 8 edits that do damage and 1 that does nothing. DrKiernan 17:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I love it. -Phoenix 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

People are not wikis. If a vandal cut off a guy's arm and replaced it with a penis, it probably wouldn't be too easy to fix ;) --- RockMFR 04:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • LOL. I must say, this is the oddest rebuttal I've yet to encounter. -Etafly 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to know whether the penis is the length of an arm, or normal size. Just so I get the analogy clear in my head. DrKiernan 08:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that we're not talking about anatomy, but about knowledge. Imagine you are at a book sale, and I am selling books. I say to you, "Here is a bag of books. 8 of them are complete rubbish, one is so so, one is worthwhile. The bag is free." Do you take the bag? I'd imagine you would, and just throw the 8 you don't like away later. Same with anonymous editing. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither analogy is close enough to the truth. People aren't eating the featured article and getting sick here (well, maybe if it was a long one and they printed it all out...), but it's not as simple as you imply either. Perhaps if one of the books was full of pornography, and you had to give it to your grandmother... Richard001 08:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] full/semi, maybe something new

After reading various user, talk, pump etc... discussions and giving the issue of FA articles and protection some thought, I have come up with an idea. Perhaps once an Article has reached the FA status and has survived its day on the main page maybe permanent less-than-semi-protected-but-more-just-on-editor's-and-user's-watchlist status should be enacted. In other words perhaps various "keys" should be given to the central contributers to that article and in order to edit said article an anonymous IP would have to go to one of those users pages and obtain that "key" in order to edit the page. The use of the "key" would notify the user whose "key" was used and all others with "keys" to that article. With this key system enacted, I believe that the quality of FAs might be stabilized and thereby make Wikipedia a better and more stable encyclopedia. I guess you could think of it as a sort of "active watching" or local adminship of an article. Also these keyholders might have the ability to lock an article lock an article for a period of time if they feel it necessary. I propose this because I believe that Semi is too strong and simply watchlisting to be too passive and prone to slower reverts of vandalism. Let me know if I am way off base or not with this idea.

Continually questing to make Wikipedia better Cronholm144 09:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that in addition to being passive, Watchlists only feature the most recent change to an article. So if someone performs vandalism and then another user edits without noticing the vandalism, it's possible for the incident to go unnoticed. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I would also like to know if this is a proposal worthy idea, and I would love as much input as possible Cronholm144 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this proposal. The most fundamental, probably, is that it calls for very granular permissions (for each FA, specified users would have unique access to the article). That's completely contrary to the fundamental design of MediaWiki software, where access to an article is by class of user (e.g., for semi-protected articles, all IP users cannot edit). I don't think the developers would be at all interested in this, particularly given that there are less than 2000 FAs out of 1.7 million or so articles.
In any case, this is the wrong place to discuss such a proposal; this is the talk page for discussing protecting Main Page articles, not FAs. If you really want widespread feedback on this, you should take it to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not a good idea. Completely goes against the fundamental idea that everyone can edit. Users do not own articles. --- RockMFR 03:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone can edit still thay just have to click two more times to do so. It is more of an alert system.Cronholm144 04:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please peruse WP:OWN Kuronue 01:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interferes with Ignore all rules?

This "policy" does hinder Wikipedia all the time, so wouldn't that make this policy/guideline void under Ignore all rules? And if so, how the heck did this become policy? It's too idealistic. --Andrew Hampe Talk 22:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's only a guideline, not a policy. Ignore all rules applies almost everywhere, including when administrators make decisions to protect, but doesn't render all guidelines meaningless either. Richard001 10:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Proposal - Redux

I think TFA should automatically be semi-protected for its 24 hours.

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. Although the learning curve has ben steep in the few months I've been editing, and an article that I've been working on was rated FA back in February and was yesterday's (May 22, 2007) TFA, I still feel that what I've learned is a drop in the bucket compared to what I still need to learn. For example, I didn't really know anything about Protection until yesterday. Since then I've read lots and lots (including all the discussion on this page)and probably can't say anything new in support of semi-protection for TFA. All I can do is share my experience and support some of the comments written above - especially by Mandel and John Broughton - as well as others. Yesterday Ellis Paul was TFA. What should have been a day of nothing but excitment and joy, ended up also being a day of misery. I barely ate or slept since I was tied to the computer fighting vandalism. Thankfully quite a few other Wiki editors were there to help, but it was absolutely exhausting. I was shocked when my request for semi-protection was denied. There was alot of promotion regarding the Wiki TFA designation from Ellis Paul's management and many many friends and acquaintances visited Wikipedia for the first time. Sadly, several of them were greeted by juvenile vandalism on the Ellis Paul page. Although most of the vandalism was removed quickly - I would say within a minute to two in most cases - the vandals worked faster than the vandal police. To say that I am appalled at the waste of time, energy and talent is putting it mildly. Almost immediately after the 24-hour Main Page designation ended, the vandlaism stopped. IMHO, if that doesn't indicate a need for 24-hour protection I don't know what does. I counted 103 incidents of vandalism - several to the infobox. Almost all of them were anonymous IP edits. There were a handful of true edits - all minor.

Those who truly want to make an article better will. A simple headline at the top of TFA alerting visitors/editors that the article is being protected for 24 hours would suffice.

We need to be good stewards of the time, talent and energy that's out there. Right now I can almost say with certainty that yesterday's negative experience has soured me on ever working towards TFA again. I dont feel that my time, talent and energy is valued at all. Once again, it seems that the perpetrators have more rights than the victims. The vandals must be laughing at how stupid those that would allow this to happen must appear to be. IMHO, nothing can justify allowing this to happen. Kmzundel 13:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The main argument of the "anti-protection racket" is that protection turns off new editors who would otherwise contribute to wikipedia. Kmzundel's experience indicates that the reverse of this may be true, i.e. editors are actually discouraged to participate because of the excessive vandalism of one of the main pages. The fact is that neither view is supported by data, and we are arguing over different hypotheses solely with the benefit of personal testimony. Do we have any data on the number of editors recruited and lost? If not, we should restrict our discussion to the facts. The fact is (as was shown in December) that anonymous edits of TFAs do more damage than good. DrKiernan 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict. I apologize if my response is somewhat redundant) While I agree with you, from what I've read, this has been proposed and denied repeatedly over the years -- the main position is that wikipedia is founded on the principle that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and FA's represent the apex of wikipedia -- as such, the wiki philosophy must especially be reflected when FA's are presented on the main page. To me, not semi-protecting FA's for their 24 hours of fame is illogical and stubborn -- as history (edit histories, in this case) clearly shows that the world is far from ideal. If anything, the credibility of wikipedia is irreparably damaged when a person looks at a FA (which represents the best wikipedia has to offer) for the first time and reads "ur faggots and im faleing grade 9." Statistically, of course, the great majority of readers won't encounter a vandalized page due to the vigilance of RC patrollers, but a great deal of visitors (probably in the order of high-hundreds, if not more, depending on the article), will most assuredly visit the article during the window of time you'd described. Of course, all of this has been argued before. If you haven't already, might I suggest looking at the archives? Perhaps you'll find an explanation that's to your satisfaction -- if not, then maybe this issue can be raised again, but this time with some success. Cheers! -Etafly 14:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm preaching to the choir when I say that I'm not proposing a change to Wikipedia's principle that anyone can edit - because anyone still can edit - just not at all times!, like, for example, during the 24-hours that an article is TFA!  :-) Kmzundel 14:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
From my short experience of reading this page it seems that most people actually agree with you. I might add that a statistically and practically significant number of readers view vandalized articles - often 10% and more. Another set of studies of FA vandalism to compliment the December studies (see WP:WPVS) would be in order. Frankly when you have articles vandalized 10% of the time and 80-90% of IPs are vandals (and the rest hardly making any major contribution to an already almost perfect article) there's no a great deal of logic in leaving it unprotected. There may be the odd newbie editor put off by not being able to contribute, but someone who could seriously contribute something worth while to the project is going to be much more put off by the high levels of vandalism and lack of policies to deal with them.
What is also needed besides further statistical analysis of vandalism is a survey of new users and anonymous editors as to what their opinions on not being able to edit articles (especially FAs) are. It may well find most readers would support the move, since they wouldn't have to witness vandalized pages nearly as often. Richard001 00:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've changed the way I was thinking. I realize that Wikipedia's principle anyone can edit doesn't translate to anyone can vandalize. So semi-protection of TFA doesn't go against the principle. Kmzundel 02:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could run a few trials - say once a week we have a day where the FA is semi-protected throughout its time on the main page. We have data for regular days, but we have nothing with which to compare it. I don't think it would be harmful just to run a few trials - maybe four or five - to get an idea how semi-protection would work and what impacts it would have. Editors of the article could be encouraged to further discuss their experience to help us get more feedback. Saying this is a step towards semi-protection is no argument here - we simply need some data for comparison so both sides of the debate can be better informed. Richard001 11:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

In order to gauge consensus for sticking with or changing the current policy/guideline on protecting today's featured article (only using semi-protection infrequently, if at all), I have categorised editors expressing an opinion on this discussion page since the completion of the data-gathering exercise in December 2006. As can be clearly seen, the overwhelming consensus of the editors contributing to the discussion (27 out of 32 on my count at 09:31 UT 24th May 2007) is in favour of a change to the current policy/guideline.

If you are in the wrong category or are not in a category at all, please move or add yourself.

No "polls are evil"-type posts please. I know already. DrKiernan 09:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I got the same response myself when suggesting a survey of current opinion, but I don't think there's any other way we can make progress with the debate, we'll just end up talking around in circles for years. Knowing where people stand will certainly help focus the discussion and allow us to give a more accurate indication of the dispute on the policy page. And if the vast majority of editors think the policy needs changing in some way, it probably needs to change. Getting as many editors as possible to add their opinion would help us come to a quick conclusion where the community stands on this one. Richard001 10:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks from me also. It seems pretty obvious that the majority favors policy-change. I hope this sparks some movement towards that. Kmzundel 12:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You've shattered my confidence in my writing skills, my good sir! Please allow me to clarify. I meant to say that I am in support semi-protecting all FAs for at least the duration in which it's featured on the main page, but that things were unlikely to change given the outcomes of all the previous discussions. My pessimism should not be confused with surrender, however! All the best, -Etafly 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry that's entirely my fault. My reading skills are in error, not your writing ones! You've also highlighted that I'm only in support of semi-protection for the day (currently). DrKiernan 14:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We seem to be building consensus for semi-protection for a day. Question - who makes the final decision to change policy? This is all still mind-boggling to me - having only been editing about 6 months. Kmzundel 10:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Policy/guidelines are determined by the consensus of the community. I would advise that we continue making tiny adjustments to the project page, until someone starts screaming at us, and then we discuss that single minor point. If there is consensus to adjust that minor point we move on, if there isn't we hold and discuss. See Wikipedia:Consensus. DrKiernan 10:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simpler approach

I would suggest that we simply examine current actual practice and have the guideline reflect that. There are always some people who strongly object to current practice, but until and unless they succeed in changing said practice, it is a guideline by default (I refer people who don't understand this statement to WP:PPP). >Radiant< 11:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I don't understand what you mean when you say "examine current actual practice and have the guideline reflect that". Practice by whom? Could you please explain further? Kmzundel 12:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The practice of whether or not the main page featured article is protected each day. >Radiant< 12:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think so -- If people cite policy when they refuse to protect, or unprotect a FA page during its 24 hours, then the practice itself, logical as it may be, is thwarted by policy. I think reaching consensus here is the way to proceed. -Etafly 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main page protection

Where can I find the analogous page for the main page protection policy? I can't seem to find any such policy page by searching. I've searched for such a page quite thoroughly, so I'm presuming its absence is no mistake here.

It raises some important problems for this policy if there is not: Letting IP editors edit an FA, the primary feature of the main page, while denying registered editors the right to edit the main page without the matter even warranting a policy page (and lack of policy page raising an eyebrow) hardly seems logically consistent to me. I could just as likely make a small improvement to the main page (perhaps adding a new news item, an internal link etc.) as I could for an FA. The FA is after all the best of our work, and the likelyhood that I would need to edit it, and that by editing it I would actually substantially improve it, is fairly low, just as for the main page. It is also going to be visited frequently, and having it vandalized is little better than having the same done to the main page. Users may get a kick from being able to edit our main page FAs, but the same applies to the main page. The situation is almost identical, yet one policy says 'No, nobody can edit it ever, it needn't even be discussed', while the other says 'No, it should never be protected except under extreme circumstances. Can anyone else see the strange divide here? Richard001 10:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I, indeed, find this to be a valid point. Evolauxia 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, Richard.....you have indeed uncovered a strange divide. Kmzundel 23:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying the main page is no more important than the main page featured article, but the divide in protection is still too large for my liking. Another comparison is editing the main page FA and uploading an image to Wikimedia Commons. You need to have an account simply to upload a free use picture found on flickr, but to replace the main page FA with a picture of a penis, which is viewed by thousands of people each day, requires nothing. Richard001 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Richard, you again make a valid point. If TFA is part of the Main Page for 24 hours....and the Main Page is always protected....it seems a paradox that TFA is not protected at least for the 24 hours that it is part of the Main Page. Kmzundel 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • From the protection policy, "Indefinite full protections are used for ... High visibility pages such as the Main Page in order to prevent vandalism." >Radiant< 09:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement whilst on the Main Page

Richard asks for proof that the articles are improved whilst on the Main Page. An interesting point. These are the last three Today's featured articles: [2] [3] [4]. I have taken the first and last version from each day, and compared the two. DrKiernan 08:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • IMHO, the comparisons do not show significant improvement and do not justify the time it took to revert all the vandalism. Kmzundel 10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. In Simeon I there are three errors ("Boris II", "817" and "they was rested") and as for Caspian expeditions, I don't think "Chungamania" has had a great impact on European history, in fact, as it is a made up country, it's had none at all! DrKiernan 10:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
A study of about 10-20 random diffs would be good. Since we need only look at the differences it shouldn't be that much work either. We could use these results to reword the policy page based on facts rather than speculation. Richard001 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking the last 10 then:
4 improved: [5](+ ref) [6](lead) [7](years unlinked; extra links added) [8](+ ref)
2 little different: [9] [10]
4 damaged: [11](made-up country) [12](incorrect dates, etc.) [13](repetition) [14](ref vandalised)
DrKiernan 07:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Even for a small sample size that basically shows the original argument was flawed. Changes to the wording now reflect the truth of the matter. I've also pointed out another important aspect - there is no evidence at all to suggest semi-protecting articles will prevent such improvements. It might even be found that most of the improvements were by registered users, and most of the damage was from anons slipping vandalism through the cracks and not having it cleaned up for all the chaos of high traffic editing. I'm not asserting this is the case, but I would hardly be surprised if it was. Richard001 09:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
DrKiernan, thanks for taking the time to compare the last 10. And I would add that 3 of the 4 "improvements" were barely that. IMHO, only one was a significant improvement [15](lead). I agree that the original argument is flawed. Kmzundel 10:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time taken to correct vandalism

Richard asks: Is vandalism cleaned up in "a matter of seconds".

From the December 2006 study we estimate that the average time spent vandalised is:
(239 + 81 + 82 + 114 + 18 + 113 + 135)/7 = 130.33 minutes
and the estimated average number of vandal edits is:
(76 + 45 + 62 + 80 + 166 + 105 + 98)/7 = 90.3 edits
Hence, the estimated average time to clean up vandalism is: 130.33/90.3 = 1.44 minutes (86.6 seconds). DrKiernan 10:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these statistics for, us DrKiernan. I've tweaked the policy page again to reflect the data we have available. I've also pointed out that what is most important for our readers (and they are most important, are they not?) is the percentage time spent vandalized, i.e. the chance a random user will view a vandalized page. I have made no judgment as to whether the times spent vandalized in the December study articles is acceptable, I've simply given the reader the figures. A comparison of this with the time spent vandalized for a 'normal' article would also be appropriate here, though I'm not sure if we have this sort of data available yet. Further research is needed - we're leaning too heavily on a single study from 6 months ago with a sample size of 7. Richard001 11:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies#Conclusions from study 1, the average time for reverting vandalism generally is 12.63 hours. The median time is 14 minutes. DrKiernan 11:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What now (redux)

I've read and re-read everything here on this Talk page.....and it seems to me we keep saying the same things over and over again....making the same valid points over and over. How long do we keep this up before determining that we've reached a consensus? I don't see anyone posting comments here saying they strongly favor the current policy....only comments from folks who obviously don't favor the current policy. We've expended a good bit of time and energy (thank you all for that) making the same points. The question to be answered is simply this: should Wikipedia's principle "anyone can edit" be translated to "anyone can vandalize"? I cannot believe that's what the Wiki folks intent was. Nor do I believe that semi-protecting (at the very least) TFA for 24 hours goes against the spirit of that principle. If you sense a bit of frustration on my part, you're right. And I've only been part of this discussion for 10 days. Kmzundel 15:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the main point of contention is that on the main page, directly below the header and above the FA is the following line, placed in full protection:

    "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

    While I don't think that semi-protection makes this statement false (anyone can indeed edit a semi-protected page, so long as they register!), others may feel that any form of protection is in direct contradiction to our favourite wikislogan. Perhaps the solution would be to footnote that statement explaining that anyone is free to register in order to gain the ability to modify FA's.. However, it's time we start seeing reality; I have not seen a single FA that has been improved by IP-edits during its 24 mainpage hours. The rare good faith edits are probably more frustrating, as I find that they tend to undermine the overall quality of the FA without justifying immediate reversion (others may disagree, of course.) I'm not sure how we can effect an immediate change to policy. Perhaps we could take this to WP:VPP. Best regards. -Etafly 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would rather continue evolving the policy here by making incremental adjustments, as Richard and I have done. It has changed for the better since we began.[16] Although it doesn't seem to have effected perceptions yet, judged by my failure to get Today's featured article semi-protected.[17] DrKiernan 16:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
My request was turned down as well.  :-) Thanks for all your efforts. Kmzundel 16:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Tsk :) Fact is, the "anyone can edit" slogan by the GodKing is a pretty powerful exhortation, too. If it gets extreme (and it's not right now, IMO), then by all means, re-report. But the main page article should not get into a situation where semi-prot is the default setting, like move-prot is right now - Alison ☺ 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should seek his opinion on the subject in light of WP:WPVS, though I don't agree that WP:JIMBOSAID should trump incontrovertible evidence (and possibly consensus) to the contrary. :) -Etafly 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (Why are we using bullet points?) I'd rather see it change gradually than try to make any sudden leaps as well, though I feel the logical point to go from now would be to set up a new research project and do some trials of semi-protecting. I suppose a lot of people will object, but we seem to have a very strong consensus to semi-protect already, so I think some trials would be in order so we can get some idea what semi-protection might be like. A week of semi-protection and a week without is my suggestion. Where would we go to get approval for such a trial - Wikipedia:Featured articles? Richard001 00:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (Dunno - they look cool! :) ) I'm not sure there is a "strong consensus" to semi-protect, though this page may say otherwise. My suggestion is that you gather evidence/rationale/etc and bring the matter to the admin group over on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - Alison ☺ 03:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (disclosure: I'm an admin)
If there is not a strong consensus to semi-protect there must be some form of very strong sampling bias happening here. The odds of getting around 35 editors to 4 favouring policy change (most of which want semi-protection every day) purely due to sampling error would be something like one in four billion. Perhaps there is something about this process that is biased towards people who favour stronger protection, I'm not sure what, but unless one or two editors are going to dictate to a hundred others what our policy is, you are going to have to find a great many people who favour our current protection guidelines. More input is welcome though, of course; please do whatever you can to encourage participation in the discussion. Richard001 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paste from User talk:DrKiernan

You've made a lot of changes to that document now - some of them I just reverted as they appear to be just unilateral changes. I think we need to bring this whole matter to a wider forum to gain greater input from the community rather than have just a handful of us make all the changes. Thoughts? - Alison ☺ 07:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alison's revert: Period of protection

As I said above, at the point at which my minor edits are disputed, we hold and discuss that single minor point.

I think that the time period for protection should be until the end of the day and not for a shorter period because if vandalism occurs early in the day it will recur and recur all day wasting time in having the article reverted, protected, unprotected, the protection announced, the protection unannounced, etc, etc. If the article is being heavily vandalised in the morning, it will be heavily vandalised for the remainder of the day. Studies prove that the number and frequency of vandal edits is constant all day and not restricted to specific time periods. Hence, if it needs protecting in the morning, it will need protecting all day. DrKiernan 07:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree here. If the vandalism is heavy, and not just of a marginal nature, then unprotecting the page is about as intelligent as a wasp displaying fixed action pattern behavior. What we really need is a slightly more rigorous definition of 'heavy', though. This is a matter for general discussion at Wikipedia:Protection policy, where I have argued for (and will continue to argue for) a more quantitative and descriptive, if still flexible and situation dependent, definition of 'heavy' vandalism. Richard001 10:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point 4 of rationale

  • The featured article of the day attracts more vandals than other articles,[9] and the proportion of vandal edits is also higher.[10] However, it also attracts more good faith editors.

Thanks for looking up the data on this one too; as it stands though I wonder if it should still remain in 'rationale'. The 'it still attracts a higher portion of good faith edits' line seems mediocre compared to the levels of vandalism (7 times higher than normal and *cough* 41000 times higher nominally... It's also just repeating the 'anyone can edit' line. I suggest you move the vandalism data to counter-rationale and salvage the 'good faith' by moving it alongside the 'anyone can edit' point.

We're down to 3 points for rationale now - I hope those wanting to keep the policy as it is have a huge cavalry charge coming up otherwise it looks like policy is going to change rather soon. Richard001 09:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I agree that point 4 does not support the previous policy of non-protection, but it does support the present guideline, which is to permit semi-protection but deprecate full protection. I think we should be seeking to move points into rationale and out of counter-rationale as the guideline develops, rather than the other way around. Ultimately, I would like to see the page develop so that there is no counter-rationale and we are agreed on a rationale, as well as a guideline. DrKiernan 09:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, that's a good way to go about things I think. It will be interesting to see whether administrators will start to follow the policy as it moves towards a more stable position - I noticed a protect and then unprotect issue on Jupiter the other day for example. I'll take the issue of a trial up with the admins in the next few days and see what feedback we get. Richard001 10:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to admit that I'm really confused now. Not sure why we would want to move points into rationale. It already seems to me that the 1st three rationale points start out with rationale statements then continue with statements that are counter rationale. I was thinking those statements should be moved into counter rationale. Don't we more counter rationale than rationale? Kmzundel 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that that polarises the issue. We should be working to avoid that. How about redrafting the two rationale and counter-rationale sections into one section, as below? DrKiernan 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationales

[edit] Against full protection

  • Some featured articles may be improved by their time on the main page.[1] Fully protecting the featured articles might postpone or even prevent these improvements.
  • A featured article is supposed to "exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet". This includes being editable by anyone.[2] Visitors often tend to look at our most visible articles, and having those articles editable helps attract more good faith editors to the article and to the project.

[edit] For full protection

  • Well, frankly, I can't think of any that are justifiable.

[edit] Against semi-protection

  • I can't think of any that are justifiable either.

[edit] For semi-protection

  • Unprotected articles are not always improved and can be damaged while on the Main Page.[3] There is no evidence that semiprotecting the articles will prevent improvement.
  • "Our best work" is not exemplified by a new user coming in and seeing vandalized pages featured on the main page.
  • It takes an average response time of 1 minute 25 seconds to repair each vandal edit.[4] This is helped by specialized automated bots such as AntiVandalBot. With an average of 90 vandal edits a day, on average FAs are vandalized for over two hours of total time during their stay on the main page.[4][5] Major damage can even go uncorrected for days.[6]
  • Bots are ineffective against subtle changes, and can even revert to damaged versions.[7]
  • The featured article of the day attracts more vandals than other articles,[8] and the proportion of vandal edits is also higher.[9]
  • Without exception, featured articles on the main page are brutally vandalized, and many editors spend more time reverting vandals than improving the article.
  • It is best to not allow the problem to occur in the first place than wasting time cleaning up.
  • Having to fight vandals subjects the article's editors to harassment and is insulting to their work. The attitude that the article on the Main Page should not be protected from unregistered users is insulting and fails to consider the welfare of the people behind the article.
  • Many users waste their time fighting front-page article vandals instead of producing good articles.
  • Many new and anonymous users come to the talk page to register their complaints and dismay that the FA is being vandalized and request protection.[10] When it is protected, no good faith new or anonymous users request unprotection, countering the idea that users would prefer a page they can edit to a page that isn't vandalized.
  • Most of the logic that applies to main page protection also applies to the main page FA, though the polices are completely different - one being completely protected, the other less so than a normal article.
  • Registration is required for much more trivial matters than editing the main page, such as uploading a picture to Wikimedia Commons.

[edit] Comments on the above draft

I think the format is much more effective. The only thing I would suggest is reversing the order of how they are currently listed - with "for semi-protection" at the top. Kmzundel 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the format, both ways of splitting the arguments are okay I guess. I don't like the fact that there is no 'for semi-protection' rationale at all though - surely there is enough to scrape together a few points, even just a couple. For example new editors coming to the main page and finding the can't edit it, then going to the featured article and finding they can't edit that either unless they sign up and then wait 4 days is a little off-putting. I don't personally believe the rationale for not protecting is very strong, but I don't want to see the guideline become a one sided story - that's how it was not all that long ago, before the counter-rationale section was added.
I might also add it's very confusing to find a page that says one thing in the rationale, another in the protection policy stated, and yet another thing in what actually happens day to day. We really need to get some admins in here so we can discuss actually implementing some of the changes - for example protecting for the whole day in the case of vandalism being above a rough threshold. Richard001 10:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You mean an "against semi protection" section? That could be addressed simply by removing "full" from the section title. On your third point, the change has been advertised at Protection policy and Request for Protection with Alison being the only one who came to this page to contribute. By all means, take it to Admin Board and see if that gets any attention. BTW, today's featured article is semi-protected, so the current guideline (as it stands right now) is implemented. DrKiernan 10:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, for your first point, we could split the "against protection" section into two, like so:

[edit] Against full protection

  • Some featured articles may be improved by their time on the main page.[11] Fully protecting the featured articles might postpone or even prevent these improvements.

[edit] Against full and semi-protection

  • A featured article should represent Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet. This includes being editable by anyone.[12] Visitors often tend to look at our most visible articles, and having those articles editable helps attract more good faith editors to the article and to the project.

[edit] 8 June

Unprotected
00:00-04:18
diff		 Protected
04:19-16:11
diff		 Unprotected
16:11-19:44
diff		 Protected
19:45-24:00
diff		 Total unprotected
(7 h 52 m)		 Total protected
(16 h 8 m)
Total no. of edits 61 42 37 7 98 49
Good faith edits 28 (46%) 36 (86%) 12 (32%) 7 (100%) 40 (41%) 43 (88%)
Vandal edits 15 (25%) 1 (2%) 12 (32%) 0 27 (28%) 1 (2%))
Reversions 18 (30%) 5 (12%) 13 (35%) 0 31 (32%) 5 (10%)

On Friday last week, the MPFA, Atheism was semi-protected for 16 hours, for two periods (the protection was lifted during the day and re-imposed). What I found interesting was the rate of vandalism which was considered severe enough to semi-protect the page:

Until the first semi-protection, at 04:18, there were 15 vandal edits (15% of the total), an average of 3.48 vandal edits per hour. Protection was lifted at 16:11 and re-imposed at 19:45, during this unprotected period there were 12 vandal edits (32% of the total), an average of 3.36 vandal edits per hour.

The average no. of vandal edits per day to the MPFA is 90, an average of 3.75 vandal edits per hour. In other words, the vandalism was no more (and virtually no less) than the usual level experienced by the MPFA.

Presumably, either we are managing to get this guideline considered sensibly or the article was preferentially semi-protected because it was perceived to be a controversial subject requiring protection.

Let us hope that it is the former! DrKiernan 07:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think in such an important case of Main page FAs we need to be a little more precise in defining what levels are needed to protect. Our main focus here should be to minimize the proportion of readers who see a vandalized page, so we need to come up with a rough level of vandalism at which we protect, and perhaps another level at which we protect without further question, until the end of the day. But what level of vandalism is acceptable? 5%? 10%? The policy shouldn't force admins to go from not protecting to protecting at any exact level, but there should be a rough level at which they should consider protecting, and another, higher level at which a user can ask for protection and get it until the end of the day with no messing around. Richard001 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This policy no longer represents the approach of admins to protection

I am sorry but changes to this page over the last month have completely distorted this policy to the extent that I do not recognise it. We are "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" not "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit as long as they have had an account for 4 days". The main page FA is one of the first pages (after the main page) which people will come across, to find it semi-protected undermines one of the core elements of the project. It should not be semi-protected. WjBscribe 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we agree but as we've said above "anyone can edit" does not mean "anyone can vandalise". It means "anyone can contribute useful information". DrKiernan 07:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In very extreme cases, admins may have to semi-protect it because vandalism has become so frequent that those reverting it cannot keep up. The primary manner by which vandalism is dealt with on Wikipedia is through reversion by other editors, not by protection. The main page is one of the most watched areas and vandalism is quickly spotted. Where protection becomes necessary it is usually because of a peak period of vandalism - ie. when the majority of kids finish school in the US. Protecting the page "for the rest of the day" would be a silly over-reaction. The page should be protected for an hour or so and the situation reassessed at that point based on how much vandalism then occurs. WjBscribe 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, studies show that the level of vandal edits is constant throughout the day. It is not restricted to specific time periods. DrKiernan 07:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think these policy needs to be dragged back in line with the actual approach that is taken, rather than being used to push an approach that is in my opinion incompatible with this project. WjBscribe 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the recent edits you made have distorted the policy which both an overwhelming (see above) consensus and overwhelming statistical and logical arguments support, that has been building up for some time but has been suppressed from being reflected in the policy page. It seems we are just going to be bogged down in some dogma that any idiot being able to vandalize our most prominent article is our most important attribute. I suggest you take things up on this talk page before you make any further contributions, and achieve consensus before altering the policy. I suggest you find about at least 30 or so who people who support this policy, because that's how many you are going to need to make the changes you wish to. Richard001 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The changes were made without consultation at any of the expected locations - the discussion should have been advertised at the village pump, requests for comment on policies and the administrators' noticeboards. The policy has been changed by attrition not consensus - this a pretty unwatched policy and I suspect most people are unaware of the change (as I was). In any event, having a page that does not reflect what admins actually do would be pointless. WjBscribe 00:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I don't see one of the five foundation statements of Wikipedia as being "some dogma" to "be bogged down in". Please assume a little good faith here on behalf of the others. Frankly, a small poll on the talk page is far from "overwhelming consensus" given that nobody has been informed that this wholesale change is ongoing here - Alison ☺ 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, we have a 41-3 consensus to change policy. Getting more people to comment isn't going to change that. The way you are trying to structure this page is on the far left of those 3 who still favour no 'no protect' stance. I invite as much input as possible so we can finally clear this thing up. Let's get a notice posted on people's talk page about the discussion so nobody can say they've missed it and advertise it everywhere we possibly can. Let's get hundreds of people's input - we're sick of waiting around to make changes. Would you care to help out with that? Can you organize to have a message appear when people log in like those 'Wikimania sign up' things? Since you are all more familiar with such processes than I am, can you please go ahead and make the appropriate advertisements on such pages? Richard001 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Make that 41-4...I agree with everything they've said above. Trying to modify policy without making it widely known is usually seen as A Bad Thing. ^demon[omg plz] 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does your "poll" include names of editor who the page history says have never edited this page? And some are dated before it was created? I don't think the level of spam you propose for such a minor change is necessary. A post to each of the forums I mentioned would suffice. WjBscribe 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It is because of that negative 'polling is evil' nonsense that the majority view has been suppressed from being made obvious. I can see the advantages of not having a poll from the point of view of those who want to avoid protection, but I think it's highly deceptive to hide that view. DrKiernan has compiled the list carefully and has spent much time doing so - please don't denigrate his work - provide specific examples if you wish to criticize the validity of the list. As for being 'spam', a change from current practice to what the majority of people wish to do - semi-protect all pages while on the Main page, is no minor alteration, and given its implications for Wikipedia philosophy and politics it's certainly more important than most other messages, many of which I find trivial and annoying. Richard001 00:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder that policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. The page as it was before a few hours ago was totally at odds with common practice. – Steel 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

By that logic admins will only do what this page says, and this page in turn will only say what admins do. See the problem here?
Well actually you can't force admins to use their tools. Policy can prevent them doing so, but nothing compels them. WjBscribe 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice Steel359 removed the "poll" above. Given that it doesn't appear to be a poll, and rather appears to be a biased categorization of people's opinions to try and weigh consensus in favor of a viewpoint, I must say I wholeheartedly agree with the decision to remove this fraudulent poll, as we shouldn't be referencing biased results in our discussions. ^demon[omg plz] 00:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Absolutely. - Alison ☺ 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is bordering on vandalism now - many people came here in good faith to sign that poll and now their efforts are being hidden to avoid it being made clear just how obvious the disagreement with this policy is. I also consider the comments made an attack on Dr Kiernan's character and I can easily see why so many experts leave this project. Richard001 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No they didn't. Almost no one voted - which is a bad way to judge consensus anyway. The rest of the signatures were collated based on comments made at other times and not in the context of a full discussion. It also failed to include as supporters of not protecting the page: Raul (who wrote it originally) or One who was the first to suggest it be made into a policy page. Thats pretty shabby practice in my opinion. If you want consensus - we have a new discussion here now, not a vote dodgily constructed by someone with an axe to grind. WjBscribe 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm confused...did they sign the poll, or did DrKiernan collect the signatures and categorize them as you said before and it says above? You're telling me two stories here. ^demon[omg plz] 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I said what I did above, and I invited everyone to edit or amend or add to it. (Although not to delete it. It only usual to delete talk comments if they are offensive. At the very worst, it should have been archived.) DrKiernan 07:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See, this is why a lot of reasonable people give up on Wikipedia. You've found what you believe to be a sub-optimal approach to measuring opinion, so you delete it. That's right, you delete it! The anyone-can-edit card is played until the cows come home, to defend policies rooted in a sometimes goal-blind subjectivism—but wait, I didn't realize there were these exceptions in the fine print down here... User:DrKiernan can't add certain things to this talk page. I found some more: Don't attempt to summarize opinion unless you are a certified master of the approved wiki method. One moment it's "anyone can edit": the next minute it's "assume every user will discourse with you in the context of years of experience with, and dedication to, approved wikipedia methods. Feel free to revert in all other cases."

Wikipedia's approaches to article management, including this policy, have largely subsumed any burgeoning interest I ever had in making better articles (though it remains an interesting read). –Outriggr § 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because it didn't measure the opinion of the community, it measured the opinion of a few people, and many of the "voters" didn't even edit this page! If we're going to take people who didn't take the time to edit this page, I could easily come up with 100 users who, according to me, disagree with the changes to this page. Whether they truly believe that or not is debatable. Even if all of the voters who didn't vote do truly think that way, my point is that by selecting your own sample, you can control the "opinion". Selectively counting who you think agrees with you is no better than canvassing users who you think will agree with you on an RFA or AFD discussion. Ral315 » 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ral315, you and I seem to be yin and yang. As a matter of procedure, what you say is quite obviously true. But why the need for control? The points are so obviously true that they cannot be the reason for deleting the "offending" matter. The deletion sends a message that this is a court of law, not a discussion forum. What could one ever learn about the process of discussion if all the missteps were retroactively purged? If a four year old spells in fridge-magnet letters that "MOMMY SMELLS", does mother feel the need to censor the fridge?

I don't believe that adding stuff to a talk page has anywhere near the potential for "controlling opinion" that deletion does. This is not to say that I thought collecting other users' names in a table of opinions was a great idea either. I consider that activity much less harmful than the unilateral deletion of text and the authoritative use of headers like "This policy no longer represents the approach of admins to protection". Nope, no sense of an attempt to control opinion in those activities! The table-maker above was making an effort to summarize a few dozen stated opinions; the header author is speaking for 1000 admins. Hmm...

Here's a thought experiment. The situation is reversed. The table contains editors' names grouped under headers by one person, all indicating opposition to TFA page protection. So I see this, and perhaps I'm an experienced editor, so I think it's "amusing". The opinions being expressed may very well be in the minority on Wikipedia, and I know it. As an experienced Wikipedia user, I also know that policy change doesn't happen this way. And, well, it just's a nice coincidence that I disagree with the content. Here's the free-will moment:

  • I express my opinion on the advisability of this approach
  • I delete (or archive-tag, he) the offending matter and say, "we don't do it this way, have a nice day"

Every time an established editor on Wikipedia does the latter, in spirit, they are consciously or subconsciously sending out strong messages that the wiki method is only what they decide it to be. There are extremities where this would not apply, of course, but we're nowhere near them.

I cannot place my finger on the paradox of being so concerned about what's legitimate process that one deletes or mangles what they do not think is legitimate process, in doing so undermining one of the linchpins of legitimate process. –Outriggr § 05:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

1. All my edits were done deliberately slowly, in order to ensure that there was adequate time between each edit for discussion and reversion.
2. The changes have been extensively advertised on the Talk pages of Today's featured articles, Requests for protection and the protection policy. I would also like to highlight this edit [18] where I suggested taking the issue to Admin Board. DrKiernan 06:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've notified the admin noticeboard, the village pump, and the requests for comment page as suggested. Hopefully there will be no more suggestions that the discussion is being somehow 'biased' by those seeking protection. Richard001 08:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Okay, look. Let's start a new poll based only on current editors, but let's advertise it properly, and contact all of those in the above poll so that their votes (if they did actually vote, which many did) are not ignored. Okay? Richard001 01:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think thats a good idea because:
  1. We should have a discussion not a poll.
  2. Contacting people individually selected for particular viewpoints (when those with the opposing viewpoints were left out) would be canvassing only one side and is clearly against WP:CANVASS. If the discussion is advertised, you can expect those people will offer opinions again (though whethet they still hold opinions expressed in passing 6 months+ ago is another matter).
We have established procedures for changing policies. We flag the discussion up at WP:RFC/POLICY and/or WP:VP/P. That would be the appropriate was to go about this (without individual canvassing). WjBscribe 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with WjB. I'm against polls, but I would like to see the table restored as it is a useful tool in determining consensus. DrKiernan 06:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I likewise concur that a poll isn't helpful. Policy really isn't created by voting on it. >Radiant< 08:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope that its also not created by a handful of editors talking amongst themselves and coming up with changes that could impact the whole concept of an open source encyclopedia. Regardless that the Main Page Featured Article is high profile and inviting to vandals, it should not be protected. Frankly, I think that protection is somewhat overused. The more restricted access is to Wikipedia the less new users we will attract. Maybe it would make sense to have new or IP accounts editing high profile pages need to go through an extra hoop, like filling out one of those things with the hazy numbers and letters before they can save an edit. Protecting the page seems likely overkill. There are lots of vandal fighters around and the Main Page articles can be watched closely, just like the page User:Jimbo Wales. —Gaff ταλκ 01:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I can see what has been happening here. Most of the people who want this policy changed are likely to watch this article and call for changes, but those that are happy with it how it is are less likely. I think that may have been biasing discussion to some extent, but to what extent remains uncertain. Perhaps a random questionaire posted to (non-inactive) users could help us get a clearer picture of what the 'average' user thinks about it?
In response to the comment above, don't you feel it sends just a similar if not more 'anti-open to everyone' message to fully protect the Main Page? Registered users are more likely to improve the main page than anons are to improve the MPFA, so why are we discriminated against? Why do you think we need to attract more users? Jimbo himself has said we need to move towards quality. Having a picture of a naked buttocks in 10% or so of the page views might be funny for the vandal, but I don't think we will attract any editors worth their salt with such an image. As for extra hoop, a CAPTCHA will hardly do anything to distract vandals (it's used to tell humans and computers apart, not honest and dishonest people, while semi-protection almost completely kills vandalism in most cases. We do have great vandal fighters, but because of the traffic pages get on the Main Page it just isn't scalable. Other features like Flagged versions may work out and allow our policies to become more relaxed against this sort of thing, but until they are implemented, if they ever are, the vandalism is going to remain at very high levels of page views. What, in your opinion, is a suitable compromise in terms of the fraction of readers who view a vandalized FA?
As for 'a handful of editors talking amongst ourselves', almost everyone here has supported the changes up until now, and we have done our best to advertise on related pages. Richard001 02:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Dr.Kiernan's consensus

I am shocked and angry that Dr.Kiernan's "categorization" - an attempt to show group consensus - was removed. He did not ever say it was a poll, although after his initial categorization, some folks chose to add their names. Removing it was really shabby, IMHO. Kmzundel 04:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The term "Dr.Kiernan's consensus" speaks volumes here, sorry - Alison ☺ 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"Consensus" happened to be the title of the post in which Dr. Kiernan developed the categories. Had the title been "Table", the title of my post here would have been "Dr. Kiernan's table". Kmzundel 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have never claimed it was or asked for a poll. In fact, quite the opposite. The table was a deliberate attempt on my part to avoid the polarization that comes from polls. By categorising opinion in broad and fluid categories, ensuring that users can belong to more than one category, move between categories and remove themselves from categories is an attempt to build consensus by attempting to persuade users to join one or more or other categories through the use of discussion. DrKiernan 06:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • But it was your categorisation of their opinions without them having an opportunity to confirm whether you were right in your assumption of their opinions. In some cases you interpreted some pretty old comments. You also seemed to do a lot of fishing for people who supported your opinion but did not include obvious people (like Raul who wrote the original page or One who suggested it should be policy) as people on the other side. It still looks to me like an attempt to make it look as if your view of what the policy should look like had overwhelming support when it does not. WjBscribe 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I assumed Raul654 watched the page, because when an edit not to his liking took place on the 2 April, he reverted the same day. I have said again and again both on this page and elsewhere that the consensus table and my edits are an honest attempt to generate discussion and move to a position which reflects the opinion of the community. I agree, now, that we don't know what the opinion of the community is, all that we can say is that it seems fairly split. It looked earlier as though it was in favour of a change. DrKiernan 15:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

This is a scenario where some of the concepts from this proposed policy may help. Sr13 06:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is ever implemented, yes, that would pretty much solve the problem of vandalism entirely. Until then, we must continue to deal with the problem of live edits, and debate how much we should restrict them. Richard001 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My suggestion

My suggestion is that we return to what I originally set out to do, which is to move away from the grandiose general arguments that people make about the suggested guideline and instead discuss specifics: A single minor is made or proposed, and then we discuss that single minor edit, when it is resolved we move on. DrKiernan 07:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought we were doing... So shall we start by discussing the reversions made today? For example we are back to 'extreme' vandalism, not 'heavy'. Are we really happy to have articles with the lower half of a naked woman's dead body shown to 15% of kid's that click on a Pokemon article? How 'extreme' does vandalism have to be before we protect? What's the meaning of 'extreme' and 'heavy'? It has been said that vandalism is often brief (caused by things like kids coming home from school (but don't there exist time zones?) and goes away after a short period of protection - let's do a study on that and see if it's supported by the data. Richard001 08:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
On the issue of timing of vandalism: the December study, which is what I was going on, broke the day into 6 hour periods and counted edits in each period (with the exception of 5 Dec, which was broken down further). There is no discernible pattern, it seems to be constant during the day. DrKiernan 08:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
On the issue of "extreme" and "heavy", I would define "extreme" as meaning the severity of vandalism, i.e. how offensive it is. For example, use of the c word on a page meant for children or showing naked corpses would be "extreme", but inserting gibberish would be "mild". I would define "heavy" as meaning the frequency of vandalism, i.e. how often a page is vandalised. As we know, vandalism of MPFA is over 40 000 times heavier than the average page. I would call that "heavy". The average page, or even 10 or 100 times more than the average, I would call "light". DrKiernan 11:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Diplodocus "before and after" example

[19] - seriously, how did that make it through FAC in that state? That can't be a real before and after. Neil ╦ 10:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Passed version: [20]. Yes, it is real improvement, which just goes to show that MPFAs should not be fully protected. DrKiernan 10:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    No, they should be semiprotected. Neil ╦ 10:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Was the improvement due to an IP editor or registered one? Richard001 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have expended a great deal of my time in addressing Richard's question, and the hidden request for an example in point 3 of the "against protection" rationale, so I hope you appreciate the effort, and my willingness to impart the information.

The figures are necessarily rough, because I can't spend all day scanning edits, many of which are crude, and I use the term "seemingly beneficial" because I know too little about the subject matter to judge the information's accuracy (hardly anyone gives a reference).

13 seemingly beneficial edits out of 55 total edits (39 of which were reversions) by registered users (including bots): [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

4 seemingly beneficial edits out of 59 total edits by new users and IPs: [34] [35] [36] [37]

This is an amusing one: [38]

So, in this single case under 1 in 10 IP/new user edits are beneficial. We have already discussed above the number of articles that improve while on the main page, and have discovered that it is probably at least but not much more than 1 in 10. So, the study of May 21 - May 31 MPFAs shows that: about 1 in 10 articles improves, and of the edits made to the improved page about 1 in 10 IP/new user edits are beneficial. DrKiernan 09:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Having this page admits there's a problem

Correct me if I'm wrong, but seeing as TFA gets so much exposure, why is not simply reverting as needed and occasional (ie: no more than an hour) semi-protection just done on a case-by-case basis (which is how we actually do it)? Why do we need some glorified policy to set in stone what's just common practice? We don't need to codify things that are simply just "how we do things." In a sense, this page is going against the spirit of WP:DENY, in that it's glorifying TFA's vandalism and making it out to be something special--above and beyond normal vandalism--which it's not. I just say WP:RBI and move on. ^demon[omg plz] 12:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Won't people wonder why their semiprotection requests are turned down? What about the many editors who think the page should be protected for the whole day? Where will these people go to see what the policy is, and assess its rationale? We codify just about everything that is 'how we do things'. Should we remove the FA requirements just because 'that's how we do things'? How will people know what is required for an FA? Why do you make statements like 'it's glorifying TFA's vandalism and making it out to be something special--above and beyond normal vandalism--which it's not.' when the vandalism is both numerically and by percentage of edits known, as a fact, to be higher than other articles? If you would like to read up on some of the (very limited) research available on this subject, see the vandalism studies page and especially the December study, which is the most relevant to this subject (though comparison with 'normal' levels of vandalism is also useful). Richard001 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
First and foremost, the edit summary given by your reply to me was The only problem I see is with the assertions made in your post, which I view as a borderline personal attack. But I'm trying to assume good faith here, and I kindly ask that you do the same. Secondly, yes, I have read the vandalism studies and paid special attention to the December study. I fail to see relevance. Yes articles are vandalized, and the main page FA is no different. Yes it receives a higher level of vandalism due to its higher exposure, but that's expected. Between the admins and normal users watching it, the reversion of vandalism usually takes mere seconds. However, if vandalism gets really bad, then we semi-protect it for a short period of time til it dies down. This is fully in line with our protection policy--which discourages protection at all, as we want to be freely editable to all. That being said, we do want to remain as open to editing as possible at all times, which is why semi protecting the main page FA is frowned upon so heavily. ^demon[omg plz] 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you, I was pointing out that there was a major problem with the assertion you made about vandalism not being 'above and beyond normal vandalism'. The levels of vandalism, by amount of vandalism, and percentage of vandalism are higher (there are 7 times more vandals by proportion of edits alone!). If this isn't above normal vandalism, what exactly is? Even if it was at normal levels of vandalism, we still need to consider whether 'normal' levels of vandalism are acceptable when placing out our finest work on display. Your argument that it only takes mere seconds to revert makes it sound like there is little problem, but that means nothing when you consider that there is a new vandal in mere seconds as well. Given that Wikipedia is becoming more and more widely known, this problem isn't going to go away unless we come up with some new strategy for dealing with this. It's either that or we accept that one is every half dozen people get the old 'james is gay' first impression of a Wikipedia featured article. Richard001 04:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For and against...

...is not a structure I would recommend, because woven arguments can ultimately inform the reader better. But if it's going to be employed, you can't caveat one point and not others. Would people arguing "for," like:

""Our best work" is not exemplified by a new user coming in and seeing vandalized pages featured on the main page. However, one of our best practices—allowing anyone to edit—will be clearly apparent if they attempt to edit."?

Because anything can be turned into a "yes, but", nothing should be. Marskell 13:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, so should we remove the sub-headings and merge all the points into a single section? DrKiernan 13:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Should this be a single section of prose, or divided into smaller sections? Richard001 04:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to weave the discussion into a single section, though it has been reverted by Steel as a wall of prose. Can I have some suggestions on how to improve it, or do we just want to keep it as it is?
To reiterate what I said on my talk, any rewrite which doubles the length of the section to get across the same meaning is a bad rewrite. – Steel 11:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it did introduce several more points, assuming you read it. Does it just need to be trimmed down, or are you opposed to the idea of rewriting it? Richard001 11:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't care whether we rewrite it or not, but that rewrite wasn't going to be it. My reason for reverting is, I hope, clear. – Steel 11:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps re-write the rationale as a discursive prose but leave the other sections for now? Is it worth putting a lot of effort into this page before hearing JW's views? DrKiernan 11:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused - what is the purpose of this rewrite? It seems odd to rewrite a page before it is agreed in what way it should be changed. Whether its in bullet points or text isn't really the point until it is determined for sure that this page should say something different to what it says now. The status of the guideline is more important than the format of the page... WjBscribe 11:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This seems rather like discussing what colour we should paint a replacement door before deciding if we should replace the door. WjBscribe 11:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little lost here - all I did was refashion the bullet points into a more rounded section of prose. What exactly does 'replacing the door' refer to? Richard001 08:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good idea... bad execution

The debates on this page remind me of those that took place at Wikipedia:Attribution. Many editors worked on that page for months and everyone involved thought they had consesus ... only to find that when they tried to impliment the merger involved, the broader community was a bit shocked by the fact that no one had bothered to tell them about it.

I happen to think protecting the Featured Article while it is featured is a wonderful idea. However, I also think that this is a BIG change... and one that requires a lot more discussion and the input of the entire Wikipedia community before enacting. LOTS of notice should be given ... in as many different forums as possible. You need input from Admins, you need input from regular old editors (not just those who worked on the page). I would also STRONGLY suggest that someone should bounce this off of Jimbo, to make sure that he won't pop in a few weeks after it is enacted and say "Sorry, I don't like it" (It has happened before). It is a fundamental enough change that he may make one of his rare "pronouncements" as founder. Blueboar 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave a message on his talk page if someone hasn't already. Is there anyone else or any other pages where we could post a message? I've left one on all the pages suggested, as well as WP:FA. I've also requested on the admin noticeboard that we have a hidable message at the top of the page like we did with the 'attribution' merge proposal, though I don't know if anything will come of it. Can we archive any of this page? It's getting rather big, though it's also nice to have the discussions visable for newcomers. Richard001 23:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An essay

Academics are used to a publishing paradigm where our work is assessed by peer-review, and either improved or rubbished by it, and as a result of those discussions we either publish or not. If we publish, we expect that work to remain available to the community. Wikipedia works in the same way, an article is developed through discussion, and either improved by it (in which case it stays) or rubbished by it (in which case it is deleted). However, it isn't worth the time and effort of publishing the final result if it is then subsequently destroyed or wasted. If nothing is done to address the concerns of experts who have limited resources to devote to a project, then they will leave, and join other projects which do address (or attempt to address) those concerns, such as citizendium. Citizendium has its problems, of course, (I haven't joined it yet) but if citizendium improves and grows, and wikipedia becomes bogged down with vandalism, POV and OR, I will and so will others. Maybe, that is the future, wikipedia will have its day and die, and other publishing paradigms like journals will have their day and die, and be replaced by a wikiweb where experts contribute. Who knows? When I started my career, there was nothing like this. I think there is a wider impact here, on where exactly wikipedia is heading, and how it will develop in the next few years. DrKiernan 12:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-semi-protection

I wonder if we might have the devs create protection against anon IPs but still allow immediately created accounts to edit. Accounts can be tracked, warned, and blocked much more easily. This would still allow new good-faith users to edit, while reducing vandalism somewhat. Marskell 09:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I brought the issue up on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, but it doesn't seem people are very enthused about complicating the process. Can account blocks still block the IP from which they came as well for a brief period? If not people could just create an account, vandalize, get blocked, create an account, vandalize... I'm not clear on that issue so I'm unsure whether it would, or could work. Richard001 09:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The thirty seconds it takes to create an account will reduce vandalism almost certainly. The most common vandals, hit-and-run friends of gays, are never actually persistent. They'll come, post something twice or thrice, and leave after being reverted. A good faith new editor will be more willing to take the thirty seconds to create an account. Marskell 09:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Was that what you suggested Richard? If it was, then I misunderstood and would not have dismissed it. DrKiernan 09:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes - the 'soft protection' could apply only to IPs or have a brief waiting period - the one Marskell proposed above is one with waiting time = 0. Even if blocks don't track IPs from which the account came, it might be worth at least trialling - I feel we hardly ever do any experiments around here to gather useful information. But surely it would be possible, perhaps as an option, for admins to add a 'block IP as well' for say a few hours to a day along with the account. It's very easy to create an account, but it would be very interesting to see just how much of an effect it would have - despite only taking a few clicks it is quite a big mental barrier. Richard001 09:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I copied this to the protection policy talk. Best to continue discussion there, where there will be more eyes. Marskell 11:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Likelihood of viewing a vandalised page

The average page is vandalised once every 460 days and it takes a mean time of 12.63 hours (let's say 0.5 day) to revert a vandal edit (Vandalism study 1). So, the likelihood of viewing the average page when it is vandalised may be calculated as:

0.5/460 which is 0.001 or 1 in 920

The likelihood of viewing the MPFA when it is vandalised is:

2.125 hours/24 hours which is 0.09 or 1 in 11

Thanks again for providing relevant data, I've updated the page to say one in eleven readers view a vandalized page, which is almost 10% higher, and I've also pointed out that vandalism by % time vandalized is also higher, which is one of the critical points here. Is the odds of seeing a vandalized page really that low though? I'm sure I see a lot more than that in my travels here - perhaps skew or other factors need to be accounted for when making such calculations - I can't quite put my finger on it. Even so, I doubt it could possibly be as high as 1/11 given those data. Richard001 01:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You would only get the 1 in 920 if you stuck to Random pages: higher traffic pages have higher rates of vandalism and net vandalism time, so almost all editors and readers would hit vandalized articles at a higher rate than that. Without accurate pageview data (beyond the top of the curve covered by Wikicharts), it will be very tough to calculate the actual average rate at which readers happen upon vandalized articles. Undoubtedly, it's somewhere between 1 in 920 and 1 in 11.--ragesoss 04:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Even by clicking on random pages I would intuitively expect to get more than 0.1% vandalism, though it would take a lot of clicks to test that out with much accuracy. This is an important matter though - is there something we can use as a proxy for the amount of hits a page gets? It's not about the chance a reader has of seeing a vandalized article by hitting the random button, it's about what the odds are of a reader seeing a vandalized article in the course of their normal reading. What could be the best proxy for how much an article is read - number of edits to the article? Number of links to it? Edits to the talk page? Richard001 10:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last point of against

  • Even where anon editing does not improve the article, we should be wary of disallowing it. While hit-and-run "grafitti" is the most common type of anon editing, another significant pattern is the addition of anecdotes, trivia, or memes.[15] While these may not improve articles, they are not posted in bad faith and may be a person's first experiment in editing Wikipedia.

Marskell, I can't make out what the benefit for Wikipedia is that this point is trying to make. It just looks like words to me - it never states exactly what is being achieved. Each point needs to clearly state what benefit or cost is associated with protection/non protection. Some areas have benefits and costs, but we classify them by the overall impact. I don't understand what this one is trying to say - is it pointing out that we wouldn't be assuming good faith, is it suggesting there would be more account creation, or that new users would feel encouraged to contribute more? The first line seems an opinion written as a fact, the second doesn't provide any good reason to allow such edits, and the third just defends them without pointing out what is good about such edits. I'm in favour of merging this with the other points - it seems very similar in nature. I could easily reword the for semi-protection points and make half a dozen more arguments that say basically the same thing, but we need to keep this concise and avoid repetition. Each point must make a brief, clear and strong point outlying a reason for or against protection. Richard001 09:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Even where anon editing does not improve the article, we should be wary of disallowing it" is an opinion written as an opinion, just as is the the idea of being "insulted" by no protection (an opinion which I don't share in the slightest).
"Each point needs to clearly state what benefit or cost is associated with protection/non protection." Why this website is ninth-ranked in the world, has monthly edits in the millions, and page loads in the low billions, is not an entirely clear thing. This whole debate seems to be missing that entire fact. TFA allows people to try Wikipedia. If we strangle means of trying it (which we're already doing with de facto permanent s-protection on certain articles) then Wikipedia will cease to be dynamic.
What is the most common first edit made? What was yours? Mine was some unsourced idiocy about dolphins and extraterrestrial life. If that article had been s-protected at that moment I might never have used this account, never have taken six articles to FAC, never have done anything for Wikipedia. I've written cost/benefit analyses—they work well for specific questions like "should we buy that apartment in Munich for rental purposes?" They do not work well for processes that involve percolation across many orders of magnitude. Tens of millions of vandal edits are made to Wikipedia yearly; at best, 10,000 odd people have been sifted through that mess at any given moment and are maintaining the encyclopedia. Potential additions to that latter group must be given the opportunity to try anon editing, even if it means allowing them to vandalize. You could easily, with multiple examples and statistics, do a cost/benefit analysis that advocates semi-protecting the entire site. On its face, it's a perfectly sensible idea. And it would, in the medium- to long-term, destroy Wikipedia.
So that's what I'm getting at in point six. Marskell 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"TFA allows people to try Wikipedia." Well, if that's the reasoning behind putting the TFA on the main page, let's move it further down the page and replace it's current position with the current Sandbox contents. TFAs are not the Sandbox and should not be used for "practice edits". Kuronue 02:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
If the first page I first edited, Israel, was protected, I would have gone and edited another page, and someone else would have corrected the words 'a Austrian'. I might have cried 'but I want to edit that one! for a minute or two, but I would not have left Wikipedia there and then.
I understand that the cost/benefit situation is difficult to judge in this case, and easy to get wrong. I know that we need more editors still. But you still need to point out what the overall benefit of your point is. As I understand you are stating three points - that we should assume good faith, and that both 1) New account creation may be encouraged, and 2) New editors that have already created an account may get a 'boost' from editing the TFA. That third point is the unique one to this point, but isn't very explicitly stated. I feel it's so similar to the account creation argument that we should merge the two. If the point is to stand, I think it only fair to create an opposing point, 'TFA is not a sandbox', as Kuronue points out above. Richard001 08:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for enlightening me about the sandbox. That bullet doesn't identify "hey mom" tests but the addition of material that may be tangential but is added in good faith by first time users. A good portion of newbie edits are unsourced material of this sort and the benefit is allowing them to try. I've had three FAs on the mainpage; not one has not been improved by its time. The paragraph I link in the twelth footnote added by an anon still stands in shorter form on Planetary habitability 16 months later. Would he have waited for the next day? Gone to work on something else? I don't know.
The "For" arguments are both repetitive and exaggerated and aren't being scrutinized at all. "New and anonymous users come to the talk page every few days to register their complaints and dismay..." Right. "An article that has reached featured status should need minimal further editing..." Not true. "... insulting and fails to consider the welfare..." I mean really.
And then there's this simple fact: at worst a version from the day before the TFA can be pulled up and reverted to the day after the TFA. You aren't presenting a clear and present danger sufficient for over-turning our primary editing principle on our most widely hit mainspace page.
If you want to add a contrary point, go ahead. This "guideline" is rapidly becoming a joke. What you might want to do is scrap the oppose arguments entirely and put an essay tag on it. Marskell 09:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point one of against

  • A featured article should represent Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet. This includes being editable by anyone.[11] That anyone may edit is also one of Wikipedia's Five pillars.

This is only mentioned as part of the five pillars, the point in which it is mentioned being mainly about copyrights. If we keep the rest as a footnote this should probably be part of the footnote as well. Perhaps we should move all of the material in the footnote into this point, while keeping it as concise as possible. Richard001 10:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • You can just revert it as far as I'm concerned. DrKiernan 10:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it better with everything as a footnote, or would it be clearer to leave it all in the text? Richard001 08:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding dispute - please note that I'm trying to avoid it not start another one

Marskell has a point, we have a page where the "rationale" isn't one.

I suggest (it's just a suggestion, don't bite my head off) that we re-phrase the page so that it is an actual description of what happens now rather than an injunction to action or a proposed guideline. We simple say "is" instead of "should". You can't easily dispute something that "is" because it either is or it isn't! The "rationale" section could then be moved to the bottom of the page under a new section heading. Don't know what it might be called, "Opinions" or "Discussion" or something similar maybe. It would also mean that we could remove the headers, and just have a page with a description of current practice. DrKiernan 13:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we ought to turn it into prose but keep it very short. A single para under a "Considerations" heading. Marskell 18:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I can only see further reverts if we try to change the page - I'd at least let those who have reverted know what you plan to do in case they are no longer watching the page, in order to avoid repeating the previous situation. I had hoped we would have more people joining the discussion, but besides a few administrators dropping by and reverting some changes we haven't really had much input at all. Anyway, I've renamed the section 'arguments for and against' since it certainly isn't an explanation for how things are now. I've made a few other small changes relating to discussion here, feel free to discuss any of them if desired. How do people feel about having a numbered list? I don't mind it, but it might give the impression we're 'counting' points, which is irrelevant really because its the quality of the overall argument and not the number of points that is important (and you could easily reword it such that there are more points for the other viewpoint if you so desired). Richard001 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I shall. See what I'm suggesting here: [39]. I haven't re-written the "considerations" section, just moved it (that comment means I can not be bothered to edit it, not that I prefer bullet points over a single paragraph). DrKiernan 07:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys - I'd like to stay involved here but am having mental bandwidth issues as 1) day-job is killing me 2) admin work is heavy-going and 3) I've been very ill and off-line a lot lately. I'll try review the state of play tomorrow if I get the chance but am still interested in staying involved here - Alison ☺ 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to continue participating in the discussion but, in all honesty, I'm having difficulty following it all. I'm still very green when it comes to policy and how things work. I've tried to educate myself which is how/why I came to this discussion to begin with -(after my TFA experience on May 22, 2007.) It's all frightfully confusing - when comments on this page which were made in good faith are deleted and so much time and energy going 'round and 'round and 'round about the need for semi-protection (which seems as clear as the nose on my face), I am less inclined to expend the time and energy it's taking. All I know is that I will never set myself up for that frustration (TFA) again. Kmzundel 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should include a summary quote on your experience (the one above is fine) as a footnote to give evidence of someone being fed up with the experience of going through TFA, and another from someone who supports current policy like Marskell. It would be better than just saying 'some think' or 'some feel that' - some actual examples of FA editors is what we need. Richard001 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me. You can also quote me as saying that it's discouraging to know that my time and talents are not valued. It's also incredibly demoralizing to see the fruits of one's labor so easily destroyed. IMHO, knowing that TFA is going to be vandalized on a daily basis is like knowing that a hurricane is going to hit a particular location every day and saying "Oh well. It'll be gone tomorrow." Kmzundel 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added a couple of quotes - do you think it's an improvement? I think it's better having actual FA editors as examples than just saying 'some feel'. Still, if anyone feels its footnotecruft, don't be afraid to say so. Richard001 06:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe use diffs? DrKiernan 07:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I think they look fine, but yes, add diffs - Alison ☺ 08:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:YESPRO

Per WP:RFD, Yespro was deleted while nopro was kept. Is this not POV to have a shortcut that affirms one side of the debate? Because it's commonly used, I don't think we should delete it, but I don't think we should encourage people to use it either. I've deleted it from the page as a shortcut, leaving the neutral WP:MPFAP, which is no longer than the other one. If people want to use NOPRO that's fine, but it's not right to continue endorsing a redirect that is slanted politically, just as it's goes against NPOV to have say M$ redirect to Microsoft. Richard001 05:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I reverted that just before this comment was posted. WP:NOPRO more clearly defines things as they are and is used a lot at WP:RPP, regardless of whether people like that or not. WP:MPFAP (fap??) is more of a mouthful and doesn't really make a simple, representative abbreviation as it's an acronym. I have to check every time I reference it! Furthermore, WP:NOPRO is still in existence, and until it's deleted, should really be referenced as a shortcut, IMO - Alison ☺ 05:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, comparing the M$ redirect is somewhat of a false analogy given its inherent pejorative sense. In my opinion WP:NOPRO isn't "politically slanted". Policy, by its nature, tends to be POV one way or another. I don't know of many NPOV policies around here. Imagine the mayhem of trying to neutralise WP:CIVIL for those who think incivility is a good thing? - Alison ☺ 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC) (oops - did I just employ a false analogy? :-) )
I'm not entirely happy with your rationale (having a redirect doesn't mean we must use it, and it is somewhat of a false analogy), but there's no middle ground here, so I guess I'll have to settle for keeping it. Richard001 06:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting WP:NOPRO be mandated for use, but that it's currently highly used and has already run the gauntlet of WP:RFD - Alison ☺ 06:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Average article

"An average article is vandalised once every 460 days". Who came up with this nonsense, and can we remove it? SalaSkan 18:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The calculation and source is given in the footnote: "On average a page is edited once every 23 days, and one in twenty edits is a vandal edit. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1). Hence, on average an article is vandalised once every 460 days." DrKiernan 07:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is, to use Wikipedia terminology, unsourced, unlikely and unconfirmed. I deleted this line. By the way, the definition of "vandalism" is a subjective one. SalaSkan 23:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed tag

There appears to be no statement in the current article body which is disputed. I am not disputing content.

The only dispute is whether the page should be labelled as a guideline. Guidelines are defined as: any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus.

In my view, neither of these is true of the present version. DrKiernan 10:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly a guideline in the first sense: it recommends not using protection except in extreme cases, and then only for short periods. If you're disputing the consensus, we can leave the tag up. (Although I don't totally get it, if you're not opposed to the content as such.) Marskell 10:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It is merely a semantic point. "Articles must not be protected" is an instruction. "Articles should not be protected" is a recommendation. "Articles are not protected" is a statement. DrKiernan 11:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You can keep making your argument as often as you like, but the point that "there is no active dispute" is a matter of fact, not opinion (regardless of whether you like that fact). The "disputedtag" is for active disputes. This isn't one, and in an encyclopedia, facts trump opinion any day. >Radiant< 13:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an active dispute, as shown by our disgreement. It was you that originally propelled this page to policy without bringing it to the attention of the wider community, and we are now suffering the consequences of you taking such action without consensus. DrKiernan 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur that there is an active dispute. Speaking for myself only, I can say that I dropped out of the discussion because it seemed hopeless to continue...and I was plumb wore out. But my feelings are the same - I will never work to achieve TFA (again) without protection. Kmzundel 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Where does a disputed tag say actively disputed? It is simply disputed, and almost always has been. There's never been much consensus either way, and our attempts to gather any form have failed. It should basically either be left as a disputed page or take away the guideline status. Since the page is descriptive and not prescriptive, it can't really be called a guideline anyway. It's just a summary of what happens. The other option is conducting a survey, but our last attempt only managed to get a handful of people to come here, so we would probably have to randomly select people and post it to their talk page. Richard001 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines are precisely descriptive and summaries of what happens. I'm not really surprised that at the bottom, this is basically a misunderstanding over what a "guideline" is. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:POL and WP:PPP. The only dispute at the moment is over the presence of the disputed tag. That is more than a little bit silly. >Radiant< 09:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
How exactly can an accurate description of common practice not be consensual? >Radiant< 10:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Rape is practiced but it is never consensual. Just because something happens doesn't necessarily mean that it happens by consent. DrKiernan 11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous non sequitur fallacy. Do you have any serious arguments? >Radiant< 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To escape the label of "non sequitur" I can provide a directly relevant example: Vandalism is practiced but it is not practiced at the behest of the community but at its sufferance. DrKiernan 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And hence, our guidelines on vandalism correctly state that vandalism happens and is usually reverted and the perpetrator blocked. >Radiant< 09:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Similarly there is nothing to say that admins should continue to not protect the page - if one felt like it they could quite easily protect it even if the vandalism was only moderate. There is nothing on Wikipedia anymore that says they shouldn't protect pages. If anyone suggests that that is not 'what is done', they can simply reply 'then so much for what is done'.

Anyway, I'm unconvinced that there is or has been any clear consensus on this policy, but I think the onus is on those that wish to change it to provide evidence that a majority of people wish to do so. If few people from the whole community show up here to complain, we can only assume it has quiet acceptance or neutrality (apathy?) from its members. Advertising for them to come here seems to have little effect, so a random questionnaire seems the only option to assess opinion on the matter quantitatively. There are clearly logical arguments for both sides, so try as we might to suggest otherwise, it is simply a matter of how many people support one argument or the other. Richard001 09:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Guideline, not policy. The point is that guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive. In legalistic systems, you can expect that if you change the rules, people will change their behavior (the "rules" cause the behavior). This does not work that way on Wikipedia; it is a long-standing principle that we do not require editors to learn The Rules before editing - and as a result, objecting to writing down some common practice does not at all stop it from being common practice (the "rules" are the result of the behavior). Hence, we write guidelines as a description of what happens, so that they can serve an educational purpose. This is further explained at WP:PPP.
In short, people who object to common practice should seek out those who practice it, and persuade them to change it; if they succeed, then pages like this one will follow suit. But it doesn't work the other way around, and attempting that is only misguided. >Radiant< 09:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So instead of discussing this here, I'm supposed to run around trying to find the admins who are policing TFA (whoever those might be - we don't have a directory of them) and try to convince them not to protect it? That seems a slightly irrational way of going about things to me. Richard001 09:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Not exactly :) but my point is that those policing admins are not going to change their behavior just because someone makes changes to this page. So if you want to achieve the former, doing the latter is simply ineffective. >Radiant< 10:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I note after reading this page that it doesn't really suggest this at all. It simply states that guidelines and policies emerge from common practice, and are then developed through discussion until consensus is reached, which can then change. Where does it state that guidelines are only descriptive? Perhaps this is how you interpret the page, but it's not the vibe I get from reading it. Perhaps you could provide me with further reading that supports your point of view on this. Richard001 09:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:IAR and WP:BURO are the principles that necessitate this approach. The best description of the process itself is probably WP:PPP. Finally, there's WP:POL, which notes that "writing down the common results of a well-used process is a good way of making policy.". >Radiant< 10:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to quote WP:POL: A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus.

Both of these points seem to go against what you are saying (i.e. that it is only a description and does not recommend, and that it is based on current practice and change should be sought by contacting those who carry practice out, rather than discussion towards achieving consensus). Richard001 10:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • You should read a bit more on POL about creating policies/guidelines. Note that recommending things a priori does not cause them to happen, and note that the fact that something happens a lot is a good indication of consensus for it. >Radiant< 10:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

I have removed this article from the requests at third opinion since several users are in dispute. I would recommend that you request community input on the matter. — Coren (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe we did. It showed that there were more people against changing the policy than was thought, but it remains unclear where the majority lie, and hence whether there is a dispute or not. Richard001 06:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move-protection

Please don't move-protect the featured article, it's pointless. Only use it for move-warring. --216.193.201.64 23:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not pointless, it stops idiots from moving the page and creating endless work for people. An FA should have its damned name sorted out by the time it is featured on the main page! Richard001 01:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha! You're saying "eff ay" in your head when you think of a featured article: "An FA". I have no objections to move protecting today's featured article, it won't hinder anyone except the vandals. I'm not recommending it, but we should be able to move protect every FA, it shouldn't be featured otherwise (FA's must be stable). James086Talk | Email 14:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal accusations

Radiant!, I do not understand your accusation "Kiernan, who does not respond to questions" in your recent edit summary here or your comment on my talk page "you're unwilling to respond" when I have quite clearly done so above. DrKiernan 08:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I've left you several questions with respect to this matter on your talk page, and you had not responded to any of those when I wrote that. >Radiant< 09:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not true as is clearly shown by the times on the edits. DrKiernan 09:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As clearly shown by this edit, you still haven't responded to those questions. >Radiant< 09:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Radiant!'s first question: 13:37, 2 August 2007
DrKiernan's response: 13:43, 2 August 2007
Radiant!'s second question: 10:38, 6 August 2007
DrKiernan's response: 11:10, 6 August 2007
Radiant!'s first accusation that DrKiernan has not responded: 08:41, 8 August 2007
Radiant!'s second accusation that DrKiernan has not responded: 08:43, 8 August 2007
DrKiernan's response to Radiant!'s accusations: 08:49, 8 August 2007

[edit] Project page needs to discuss rationale

Currently the project page lists the rules but doesn't discuss the rationale for the desire to leave the page unprotected. Tempshill 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It also kills the attempts to represent opposing views in the article itself, such as the massive waste of time and energy that goes in to round-the-clock every day fighting of TFA vandals, etc and so on, but I'll stop as I know I'll just get ignored like all the other times this topic has come up.Rlevse 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, Wikipedia:For and Against TFA protection, which I just noticed in the "See also" section, is worthwhile reading. — TKD::Talk 09:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instantly blocking vandals of the Main Page FA

I just thought, wouldn't it be a good idea to instantly block anyone who vandalizes the Main Page FA for 24 hours, regardless of previous warningss. This should put out the fun and deny recognition for the vandals. Also, the English rugby team is today's FA. I get the feeling that lots of fans of the All Blacks, Wallabies, Springboks, France teams would be eager to vandalize the article. (Just like the article on the controversial ref Wayne Barnes.--Alasdair 08:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further Information

I have been looking at the histories of this month's Main Page FA and the situation seems to have improved over last year. I will give more information when I have more data as I have only looked at the first few days and each article takes many hours. (I expect "Uranus" to take much longer two or three other article combined.)

JimCubb (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that that is a valuable use of your time, Jim. High levels of vandalism on Uranus and relatively lower levels of vandalism on other articles have had no effect on this policy; it isn't going to be changed for the better or worse, whatever your findings. Attempts to stimulate discussion in the past have resulted in some editors lying about others. Such animosity is likely to resurface in any new discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
So far I have really good news. Although I do not have as much data as I would like, I have found that the reversion of vandalism is very rapid and there are a large number of constructive edits. The only thing that I have found to be even slightly disturbing is the use of warnings. There have been instances where an anonymous user who has clearly demonstrated bad faith, all edits were destructive over a long period of time, received as many as three final warnings in a span of only a few hours and yet were never blocked. However, that is an issue for another time and another place.
JimCubb (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for my neglecting to thank DrKiernan for his solicitude for how I might best use my time. I have not received such concern by anyone other than an employer/supervisor in forty years.
JimCubb (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal is forming as a by-product of what I am finding in the process of capturing data regarding FA vandalism. It involves a paradigm regression and, therefore, a change that may be uncomfortable.

A change that is comfortable is no change at all.

JimCubb (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move protection for FA

Is there a reason we do not indefinitely move-protect all featured articles? Gimmetrow 05:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Random comment

What is an already fully protected page like Evolution got to FA? It wouldn't be unprotected would it? Sorry just a random question that hasn't got much to do with anything, but interesting.--Serviam (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This guideline is opposed - my rant

OK, for about the 8 billionth time, I've decided to read the main article, just, you know, for fun. And, for about the 7 billionth time, it was vandalized, and it looked awful. Good thing I know enough about Wikipedia to read the page histories and revert, unlike the several people who decided to vandalize the vandalism in between (one wouldn't necessarily wonder why someone might decide to vandalize an article that had for several minutes claimed that that solar system was 6000 years old because the Bible says so).

My statement, and this is something I've believed since first editing Wikipedia in September 2006: this policy does far more disservice to the place than service. Does it show people they can edit and improve an article? Yes. But it also shows about 1/4 of the people who come to a page that Wikipedia can be vandalized and isn't necessarily reliable (anyone who maintains that lack of credibility isn't Wikipedia's biggest problem apparently hasn't been in any sort of education recently). Of course, Wikipedia's loss of credibility due to vandalism on the main page, which is pretty significant, might not even compare to the disservice done to the readers. It is a very editor-centric premise (of course, developed by editors) that we should encourage editing more than worry about vandalism and Wikipedia's credibility. I can nearly guarantee you that people who use this page for research and/or viewing would come to the opposite view.

Please, stop this disservice to our viewers. At this point, I can't even tell anyone to look at the main page on Wikipedia, because it would embarrass me as an editor, and they don't have the know-how to revert it, let alone look at a clean old version of it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, as no-one has opposed you, we all agree. DrKiernan (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree (still) with your stance. Kmzundel (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)