Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Earlier today I found this wiki-related article about wikipedia. I think it really applies to us as well because we've had to lock down the main page and several other important areas of the wiki due to persistent vandalism.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050805/wl_nm/media_wikipedia_dc

Although locking down any page goes against the idea of the wiki, I think doing so is a necessary evil. Anyway, this article goes on say that they are proposing some sort of "stable content" function where once just about anything is gathered on a subject, the article would be 'closed' to all editors. What does everyone else think? Would this be a good idea for our wiki at some point down the road if, heaven forbid, Strong Bad Emails were no longer being made?

_________________

I think it might be a good idea, but I don't think we would know whether or not they completely finished a section. Unless they tell us. And, there are always some things that could be added. So, I'd say to do it, but only if we know for sure that that section is done.

_________________

But how would we know for sure that a section is complete? Perhaps we all missed something that someone else caught on to.

_________________

I am a regular editor on Wikipedia, and have seen what some people do to some of the articles, especially to political figures.

_________________

Then I hope they would at least take requests on the article's talk page...
It's a good thing we won't have to do this. I hope.

_________________

I don't think HRWiki should have to do this. We don't have enough trolls, and we are small enough that we can see all the recent changes faster than people can make them. Trolls usually don't target areas of stable content.

_________________
dot dot dot

Yeah, Wikipedia's got too much stuff going on to catch all the trolls, whereas, as you said, the number of pages on the HRWiki is low enough so that Recent Changes is sufficient to show trolling. And besides, *ahem* not calling anyone a poor speller but we do have problems with typos even in old, rather finished pages. It would be heck to see a typo and be left powerless to fix it.

Wikipedia is edited several times in a matter of seconds. The wiki is nowhere close to that, and therefore trolling is much easier to spot and stop. Protecting pages that could be improved sounds kind of dumb to me.

Though we have had to protect pages to stop edits wars before.

_________________

You quote me and Bazooka as if you disagree with us. XD We said pretty much the same thing as you.

Oops. I was quoting you for that thing you said about Wikipedia.

_________________

FYI, the Wikimedia foundation is saying that Jimmy Wales was misquoted.

_________________

I personally think this would be good on the wiki- but only for older toons (AKA 3-4 years), and then new stuff could be added via a system like STUFF.

What about the flash forward section? That could be updated anytime, even on an old email.

_________________

Protecting a page doesn't mean its done for good. You could always ask a sysop nicely if you needed to do an edit. I think its a good idea for the older toons and emails. I'd keep everything in the last year editable, though.

_________________

That's a pretty good idea. I think it would work. I hope we dont have to resort to locking the wiki anytime soon though.

_________________

On second though, I guess it wouldn't be very helpful. All it would really do would make it harder for people to edit pages. If the wiki ever grows too huge and popular so that trolling becomes a huge problem, then it should be done.

_________________

Guys.... Jimbo never said that.

Nothing to see here. Move along....

Those dang reporters. Well, it never sounded like something Jimbo would do.

_________________

My sentiments exactly. Even old pages, like SSL, could be improved.

_________________