Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-16/Discussion report
The future of pending changes
Pending changes, often condensed to "PC", is a tool that underwent a
Unregistered or newly registered | Confirmed or autoconfirmed | Extended confirmed | Template editor | Admin | Interface admin | Appropriate for (See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No protection | Normal editing | The vast majority of pages. This is the default protection level. | |||||
![]() |
All users can edit Edits by unregistered or new editors (and any subsequent edits by anyone) are hidden from readers who are not logged in, until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or admin. Logged-in editors see all edits, whether accepted or not. |
Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users.
| |||||
![]() |
Cannot edit | Normal editing | Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules. | ||||
![]() |
Cannot edit | Normal editing* | Specific topic areas authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive. | ||||
![]() |
Cannot edit | Normal editing | High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space. | ||||
![]() |
Cannot edit | Normal editing | Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts. Critical templates and modules. | ||||
![]() |
Cannot edit | Normal editing | Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects central to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces. | ||||
* In order to edit through extended confirmed protection, a template editor must also be extended confirmed, but in practice this is almost always the case. Other modes of protection: |
Polling
Provided with three options, discussion participants can endorse one of three standpoints presented. The three positions propose outright abandonment of the tool; use under a draft policy; or use once another policy has secured consensus:
- "The negative aspects of pending changes outweigh the positive. Therefore the tool should not be used at all on the English Wikipedia."
- "Despite the flaws of the trial period pending changes has proven to be a useful tool for combating vandalism and other types of problematic edits. The tool should be used in accordance with the following draft policy. This policy is intended to reflect the community input in discussions. It is not set in stone and after use of the tool is resumed there may be unanticipated problems which can be corrected through normal consensus gathering processes."
- "Pending changes should be kept in the long term, but the draft policy is insufficient and/or out of step with what the community wants from the tool. Pending changes should not be rejected entirely but should remain unused until such time as there is a more complete policy in place that has been explicitly approved by the community."
At the time of writing, there were 77 in support of option 1, 202 in support of option 2 and 9 in support of option 3. There has been no set deadline for the closure of this discussion but based on the assumption that the polling period will be at least 30 days in length, the earliest closure date would be April 23.
Discussion
According to
As pending changes should be distinct from any other protection medium on the English Wikipedia, concerns have been raised about the differences between pending changes and semi-protection, and why there is a need for what appears to be replica copy of semi-protection. For example,
In support of Option 1, SoWhy argued: "While I do understand the benefits of PC and why people support it, I still believe that any PC/FR-style protection is against the fundamental principles of the project, in that there should [be] no difference between editors (except such differences that are unavoidable) and that everyone should be able to edit equally (while semi-protection for example blocks IPs, those users can easily get the status that allows them to edit regardless – PC on the other hand would restrict editing in those cases to a small group of users). I also think that the PC trial showed that this is a kind of "power" that a number of admins do not grasp correctly and I fear that PC will lead to further problems with incorrect usage and problems with anon / new users being scared away by overzealous "reviewers" who use their new-found "powers" to reject valid edits they don't agree with. [In my humble opinion] the problems of any tool that allows one group of users to decide which edits of other users are valid without discussion by far outweigh the benefits."
On the other hand, in support of Option 2, Dcheagle contended that: "PC worked good during and after the trial and it would be a shame to let a useful thing dry up and blow away in the wind. Simply put PC is perfect in allowing good faith edits while combating bad faith edits."
And finally, in support of
What the future holds
As this may be the final Request for Comment on pending changes, the community is strongly encouraged to participate and weigh in with their views. This discussion may kill pending changes for good or may establish it as a permanent feature of the encyclopaedia's defense mechanisms.
Any further developments will be covered in next week's Discussion Report. For a more partisan discussion of the topic, see also this opinion piece by Beeblebrox, written in August 2011.
Discuss this story
I really think PC could help us here greatly increase the number of anon/new edits. --Nathan2055talk 16:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]