Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Wikipedia to tighten editorial rules, lock 'complete' pages
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4430		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  The Paper [ Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Wikipedia to tighten editorial rules, lock 'complete' pages
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?
Author:  iKipapa [ Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Wikipedia to tighten editorial rules, lock 'complete' pa
The Paper wrote:
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.
Author:  Puphles [ Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
But how would we know for sure that a section is complete? Perhaps we all missed something that someone else caught on to.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
I am a regular editor on Wikipedia, and have seen what some people do to some of the articles, especially to political figures.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
Puphles wrote:
But how would we know for sure that a section is complete? Perhaps we all missed something that someone else caught on to.

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.
Author:  BazookaJoe [ Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Sui [ Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
BazookaJoe wrote:
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.


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.
Author:  FireBird [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Sui wrote:
BazookaJoe wrote:
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.


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.
Author:  Sui [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:57 am ]
Post subject: 
Firebird wrote:
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.
Author:  FireBird [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sui wrote:
Firebird wrote:
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.

:pom:
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
FYI, the Wikimedia foundation is saying that Jimmy Wales was misquoted.
Author:  computerdude33 [ Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Meh.
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.
Author:  Puphles [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 12:21 am ]
Post subject: 
What about the flash forward section? That could be updated anytime, even on an old email.
Author:  Black Metal [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:29 am ]
Post subject:  I think i has the solution
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.
Author:  Puphles [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I think i has the solution
Black Metal wrote:
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.
Author:  Black Metal [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:46 am ]
Post subject:  maybe not..
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.
Author:  King Nintendoid [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:58 am ]
Post subject: 
Guys.... Jimbo never said that.

Nothing to see here. Move along....
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
King Nintendoid wrote:
Guys.... Jimbo never said that.

Nothing to see here. Move along....

Those dang reporters. Well, it never sounded like something Jimbo would do.
Author:  Acekirby [ Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
FireBird wrote:
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.

My sentiments exactly. Even old pages, like SSL, could be improved.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/