Wikipedia talk:Timed article change stabilisation mechanism

message: :An m:Article validation feature is being actively worked on and will apparently be available in trial form in the not too distant future.  I suspect similar ideas (like yours) will not be acted on until after this trial. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I question the need for validation of articles. I claim that rejection of bad article revisions is far more important and normally does not require experts. The mechanisms proposed are a superset of what I propose, and the other features seem difficult to implement and at best of debateable value. A more general attempt at a solution is often not better since it is harder to use and harder to implement. WolfKeeper 05:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Similar mechanisms

message: :I think requiring even the edits of mature editors to be reviewed is a good idea. We may not be vandals, but we still make mistakes. Probably the simplest scheme imaginable is that no new version would become visible until at least k other editors had approved it, with a user preference to view either the newest or most recent approved version. Deco 06:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikipedia has done pretty well so far, without such mechanisms. It would be premature to add such mechanisms, my contention is that there may be better ways to do similar things without heavyweight voting. I also disagree with the political aspects such voting can introduce, it can introduce horse trading on articles and such like. Also groups of users can conspire to push through edits arbitrarily anyway. But that isn't at all the point of my proposal anyway. It is only an antivandalism mechanism, not a validation mechanism.WolfKeeper 06:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of edits in general

message: I support this idea.  I imagine extending it with replacing the metric of how many edits an editor has made with how old their edit is with a rating system.  As you edit the article, you rate recent edits.  Based upon how your edits and number of edits are rated by others, your rating would count more or less.  Viewers would see the last edit which exceeds some threshold.  Editors would always see the latest and by editing they would be condoning prior edits that they leave behind. WilliamKF
I support this idea. I like very much that it seems so easy to adjust that a number of suggestions have already been made. That suggests that it has the flexibility to cope with unforeseen consequences and to adjust to the changing needs of Wikipedia. However, I think the original suggestion is an excellent starting point. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support and voting idea 

message: How does this differ from enough from semiprotection to get any headway? Semiprotection seems pretty popular these days, I have doubts about your ability to gain "consensus", and if you ever do gain it, please let me know what it looks like.Karmafist 18:43, December 22, 2005 
:Semiprotection applies only to articles that are specifically selected for protection. It's a reactive approach that can only be applied to very frequently vandalised articles. Applying it to all the articles in the wiki would greatly damage the wikipedia- new editors would probably not join any more if they can't do any edits for several days after registering.WolfKeeper 20:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By way of contrast, the Timed Stabilisation mechanism is a proactive approach that can be applied to all the articles in the wiki. Since vandalisation won't appear to general users, it dissuades people from vandalising in the first place, and improves the reputation of the wiki, since the users would rarely see any vandalisation; at the moment it happens as soon as the 'save page' button is pressed.WolfKeeper 20:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, unlike semiprotection, it doesn't prevent anonymous or new editor contributions.WolfKeeper 20:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It scales much better too, since it empowers the editors to keep vandalism away, rather than needing admins. Semiprotection is great for really high profile pages like GWB which get vandalised several times per day, but not so useful for less important articles. This scheme is not intended to replace Semiprotection, but work alongside it.WolfKeeper 20:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compared to Semiprotection 

message: Can we move this to Wikipedia:Timed article change stabilisation mechanism? This isn't UseMod, so we can have spaces in our titles. Blackcap (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More accurately, this isn't a CamelCase website. Blackcap (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In anycase I was bold and moved it... Thanks/wangi 19:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. I would have done it myself, but I figured maybe it was wanted there for some reason. Blackcap (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move page 

message: Since this is a feature request rather than a proposal, please discuss it with the developers on Bugzilla. Radiant_>|< 11:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Feature request

message: Please do not use the "historical" template for pages which are only a few weeks old.  The template is not for indicating one's personal opinion that a discussion should no longer be active.  +sj + 10:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "historical" template 

message: Is this proposal still active?  And how viable is it?  I see there is a fairly recent discussion above, but most of the other discussion seems to date to last year...
:It's viable.WolfKeeper 16:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically it looks like it's Jimmy Wales' call. It came up on WIKIEN and He doesn't seem to particularly favour it at the moment, but there's an experiment going on in the German wikipedia that is very similar (although we don't know precisely what they're up to, but the accounts I've seen suggest it is this kind of thing). If that works out he'll probably pick it up. There's also the point that this article may influence the German implementation.WolfKeeper 16:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activity?