Wikipedia talk:No version protection

message: A significant drawback is that this makes it much harder for mirrors to reuse our content.  One of the database dumps we provide contains only the most recent revisions of articles, and, so far as I can tell, it's by far the most used by mirror sites.  If this policy was widely accepted, our mirrors would not display protected pages at all. —Cryptic (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point, but am less concerned about mirrirs than I am about readers/students/whatever who come here looking for information on a given subject only to find a blank page. Ideally, I'd prefer a situation in which the protecting admin overwrote the disputed text with a brief summary stub before protecting (or just removed the disputed passage where this is possible). Given that this may be too much work, I'd stick with the current situation, where we depend on the good sense (and good faith) of the admin when it comes to deciding which version to protect. Filiocht | Talk 09:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, but pages shouldn't be protected for long. As Tony Sidaway said earlier, a week is a good working maximum. And I agree with him. If the page is unprotected within a decent time period, the only way it could get into a mirror is just really bad timing with a database dump. Removing a disputed passage might be a neat idea also, and I would support it, for cases where an *entire* article isn't disputed. In fact, I think it's only a slight modification to this proposal, and will add it in a few minutes. --Phroziac (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, how would we link to the seperate sections though, and keep it easy for the protecting admin? Just use a template like  and link to the whole page, with #WHATEVERSECTION at the end of the url? Or should we have another template that says the section is disputed, and shows both versions of the passage, in bordered divs, that seperate the sections from eachother and from the article? Then, leave either the current  tag on it, or a new one linking to the section that is disputed? Anyway, I didn't add any of this to the proposal yet. --Phroziac (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inhibits reuse by mirrors 

message: Generaly on articles with revert wars there is tipicaly a lack of discussing content. If people got thier own edit page they may "push their pov" (as far as the otehr party is concenred) and a third party uninvolved with the case can then process and combine it in a NPoV tone. I do feel blanking is wrong. How about a stub leftover so people know at least what the dispute is. --Cool Cat Talk 12:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool Cat's comment 

message: I'd rather have the admins use their own judgement to protect The Wrong Version of an article than blank a mostly useful page.
POV pushers who don't want the more reasonable, mainstream view to be prominently displayed could just start a prolonged but seemingly reasonable edit war over everything they disagree with.  We could end up with hundreds of ugly nearly blank pages rather than articles.
A nearly blank page is nearly useless.  On the other hand, an article page with a specific warning that it may not be perfect is nearly as useful as any other article in Wikipedia.  Unfocused 12:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Jayjg (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And how is this any different then *now*? --Phroziac (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, because blanking pages benefits POV warriors  

message: Face it: Wikipedia, as is so often quoted, is primarily about MAKING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.
The Wrong Version is a hedge, a stopgap, a way for admins to say "talk to the hand", but it is NOT in any way, form, or fashion helping the situation.
Far to the contrary, The Wrong Version and our current locking policy contribute only to headaches, acrimony, and users complaining to admins about their choices followed by admins pointing to a theoretically well-meaning meta-policy which is 100% worthless in actually resolving disputes.
Right now the dynamic is as follows:
1 - Two opposed POV groups come together on some article.
2 - They get into a Revert War.
3 - Someone calls for the article to be protected.
4 - They revert war harder, trying to make sure that "their" version is on top when an admin comes by (in the case of admins 
who just lock to whatever version they find).
5 - One way or another, the page is locked. Sometimes we get an admin who looks for the "preexisting" version and locks that. Sometimes it's a POV-warrior admin who locks it to his friends' version. Sometimes it's a lazy admin who just locks the version that's there when they arrive.
6 - The kicker; the "Winning" POV team promptly vanishes into thin air until two weeks later when some well-meaning admin unprotects the page for lack of discussion, and then the revert war promptly resumes.
In the meantime, nothing happens. Wikipedia is not improved by this. 
A nearly blank page is a sign that something needs improving. Nothing more, nothing less. A blanked page with a template explaining that it's blank because the content isn't currently agreed upon, is NOT a bad thing. Far from it.
It's a version that NEITHER side will be happy with, guaranteed, which gives both sides much more incentive to come to an understanding.
-A. Nony Mouse
:Agreed. --Phroziac (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes PLEASE, because the current system encourages POV warriors and does nothing to help the toxic atmosphere of Wikipedia 

message: This decreases the usability of the article for readers.  Many times, the piece being edit-warred over is to most outside observers trivial.  I think this proposal will simply make conflicts more intense, and make them more entrenched.  We need to stop edit wars, rather than focussing on being fair to warring parties.  Also, what if there are THREE alternatives?.  —Morven 16:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't see this working well 

message: I consider an encounter with The Wrong Version to be an instructive rite of passage for all Wikipedians, and the possibility of its retention on a protected page a salutary (sometimes the only) deterrent to revert warring.
This proposal would enable edit warriors to provoke a blanking in cases where an article contains factual information whose existence on Wikipedia they object to.  The administrator would not be free to exercise that unerring skill at finding and protecting The Wrong Version of an article for which administrators are specifically chosen.
A blank page is also of no conceivable use to any reader. I object, and if this procedure is adopted I will be far more likely to unprotect an article in the absence of other good reasons to unprotect. Moreover I will be more likely to unprotect The Wrong Version.  So there! --Tony SidawayTalk 17:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[m:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] considered helpful

message: My initial reaction was "Oh my, a blank page. Readers won't be served by that", but on further consideration, this actually gives readers both versions, showing the disputed content, and actually does give both sides incentive to resolve. I've seen edit wars erupt, the page get locked to one side's version, and then that side basically drags their heels to resolve teh content issue. They were making edits and reverting every couple minutes, then once it was locked, their response time on the talk page took hours. They proposed absurd compromises that would surely get rejected, but maintained the appearance of trying to resolve things.
The logistical proble I see is that the admin has to figure out what two versions are teh "two versions". What might be easier is if the page had a warning at the top that said "the page has been locked, blah blah blah", says the varios versions are shown below, and then shows the edit history underneath. Then the admin just puts up the flag, and the software automatically displays the warning and the edit history. FuelWagon 17:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Protected pages aren't (or shouldn't be) kept protected long.  A week is a good working maximum.  If nobody talks after a few days you just unprotect anyway.  Editors who continue to edit war get a bad reputation and invariably end up in trouble. It isn't acceptable behavior.  Changing our protection policy to enable them to force equal treatment is unacceptable. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: possibly

message: I updated the template to include a version link. I made this stuff at 1am the other day, so don't give me too much of a hard time. :P --Phroziac (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did i actually say that? Hah, must still be tired. I meant *HISTORY* link. --Phroziac (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template update.