Autoconfirm proposal

A proposal to increase the requirements for autoconfirm has
been started 
(and looks to be gaining quite significant support) at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autocon
firmed_Proposal/Poll . 
Particularly strong is the proposal to increase autoconfirm
to 7 days 
and 20 edits. Personally, I think this is a good thing for
the reasons 
listed on that page but obviously it is good to have maximum
awareness 
for what is quite a significant change when you consider the
actions 
that only autoconfimed users can do (upload, edit sprotect
and move 
etc.) It is probably better that we all post our ideas there
rather than 
having both that page and an e-mail thread and it will be
nice to see 
what the comments are on this.

G Donato


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-llists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

All of these proposals that change policies and requirements
where the
actual effect can't reliably be projected (i.e. what
specifically will
change with increasing the requirements for autoconfirmed,
how many people
who vandalize after being autoconfirmed now will simply wait
a little longer
or do a little more) ought to have a built in expiration
clause. Run it for
a month, or two months, and if the community doesn't ratify
it as being
useful then it stops on its own. Otherwise these things can
be implemented,
run without achieving a tangible benefit, and never be
stopped because doing
so requires a huge effort.

Rollback rights come to mind. Whether granting it at all and
doing it the
way it is done has worked out at all or better than the
alternatives is
something no one has studied - the people who disagreed with
it (many
people) mostly ignore it, and its only newbies and admins in
favor of the
procedure who ever think about it. How about adding Twinkle
as a gadget? For
editors who "abused" twinkle, you could remove it
and project their .js
page. When it was added as a gadget, that ability (I assume)
went away. What
are the effects of that? If no one organizes a comprehensive
review no one
will ever know - and even if someone does, and there are
significant
downsides, changing it back requires an act of Congress. So
changes like
these should all be forced to undergo a probation period to
give concrete
verification of their supposedly positive effects.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-llists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

If only all legislation had a probationary period after
which the unintended
consequences had to be evaluated.  Maybe there'd be less
legislation.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Nathan <nawrichgmail.com> wrote:

> All of these proposals that change policies and
requirements where the
> actual effect can't reliably be projected (i.e. what
specifically will
> change with increasing the requirements for
autoconfirmed, how many people
> who vandalize after being autoconfirmed now will simply
wait a little
> longer
> or do a little more) ought to have a built in
expiration clause. Run it for
> a month, or two months, and if the community doesn't
ratify it as being
> useful then it stops on its own. Otherwise these things
can be implemented,
> run without achieving a tangible benefit, and never be
stopped because
> doing
> so requires a huge effort.
>
> Rollback rights come to mind. Whether granting it at
all and doing it the
> way it is done has worked out at all or better than the
alternatives is
> something no one has studied - the people who disagreed
with it (many
> people) mostly ignore it, and its only newbies and
admins in favor of the
> procedure who ever think about it. How about adding
Twinkle as a gadget?
> For
> editors who "abused" twinkle, you could
remove it and project their .js
> page. When it was added as a gadget, that ability (I
assume) went away.
> What
> are the effects of that? If no one organizes a
comprehensive review no one
> will ever know - and even if someone does, and there
are significant
> downsides, changing it back requires an act of
Congress. So changes like
> these should all be forced to undergo a probation
period to give concrete
> verification of their supposedly positive effects.
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-llists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-llists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 2008.05.08 17:39:53 -0400, Nathan <nawrichgmail.com> scribbled 1.5K characters:
> All of these proposals that change policies and
requirements where the
> actual effect can't reliably be projected (i.e. what
specifically will
> change with increasing the requirements for
autoconfirmed, how many people
> who vandalize after being autoconfirmed now will simply
wait a little longer
> or do a little more) ought to have a built in
expiration clause. Run it for
> a month, or two months, and if the community doesn't
ratify it as being
> useful then it stops on its own. Otherwise these things
can be implemented,
> run without achieving a tangible benefit, and never be
stopped because doing
> so requires a huge effort.
...
> Nathan

It's certainly worth noting that there's an even better
example than rollback: the banning of anonymous page
creation. Done as a PR sop (obvious), with promises to
re-evaluate (never carried out), a noticeable consensus to
restore the status quo ante bellum (ignored), and no
evidence it helped (indeed, between the mire of AFC, and the
actual statistics, may've been harmful), it fits all your
descriptions to a nicety.

--
gwern
Atlas SUSLO GQ360 20755-6000 Lebed rack OTAN MEMEX virtual
ASPIC

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-llists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l