| Revision as of 16:49, 7 June 2007 editGurch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers109,955 editsm fix← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:57, 8 June 2007 edit undoDrKay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators159,713 edits per talk pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ==Rationale== | ==Rationale== | ||
| ===Against full protection=== | |||
| There are several reasons for this policy. | |||
| * Some featured articles may be improved by their time on the main page.<ref> of ]: Today's featured article on ] ].</ref> Fully protecting the featured articles might postpone or even prevent these improvements. | |||
| ⚫ | * A featured article ] ''"exemplify our very best work, representing Misplaced Pages's unique qualities on the Internet"''. This includes being editable by anyone.<ref>]'s slogan describes it as 'the 💕 that anyone can edit.'</ref> Visitors often tend to look at our most visible articles, and having those articles editable helps attract more good faith editors to the article and to the project. | ||
| ===For semi-protection=== | |||
| * |
* Unprotected articles are not always improved and can be damaged while on the Main Page.<ref> of ]: Today's featured article on ] ]. There are three errors introduced by vandals: "predecessor =<nowiki>]</nowiki>", "In 817" (should be 917), and "they was resting".</ref> There is no evidence that semiprotecting the articles will prevent improvement. | ||
| ⚫ | * A featured article ] ''"exemplify our very best work, representing Misplaced Pages's unique qualities on the Internet"''. This includes being editable by anyone.<ref>]'s slogan describes it as 'the 💕 that anyone can edit.'</ref> Visitors often tend to look at our most visible articles, and having those articles editable helps attract |
||
| * "Our best work" is not exemplified by a new user coming in and seeing vandalized pages featured on the main page. | |||
| * |
* It takes an average response time of 1 minute 25 seconds to repair each vandal edit.<ref name="December study" /> This is helped by specialized automated bots such as ]. With an average of 90 vandal edits a day, on average FAs are vandalized for over two hours of total time during their stay on the main page.<ref name="December study">For detailed data see ] - a study on the nature of edits while on the Main Page.</ref><ref>See also ], ] and ]</ref> Major damage can even go uncorrected for days.<ref>]: Today's featured article on ] ]. The went uncorrected for 2.5 days ().</ref> | ||
| ⚫ | * The featured article of the day attracts more vandals than other articles,<ref>On average a page is edited once every 23 days, and one in twenty edits is a vandal edit. (See ]). Hence, on average an article is vandalised once every 460 days. On average the MPFA is vandalised 90 times during the day (December MPFA analysis), which is 41 400 times more than the average article.</ref> and the proportion of vandal edits is also higher.<ref>The average percentage of vandal edits on the MPFA is 34.4% (December MPFA analysis), compared to 5% for the average article (WikiProject Vandalism Study 1).</ref> |
||
| * Bots are ineffective against subtle changes, and can even revert to damaged versions.<ref> by ] to a severely damaged version of ]: Today's featured article on ] ]</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | * The featured article of the day attracts more vandals than other articles,<ref>On average a page is edited once every 23 days, and one in twenty edits is a vandal edit. (See ]). Hence, on average an article is vandalised once every 460 days. On average the MPFA is vandalised 90 times during the day (December MPFA analysis), which is 41 400 times more than the average article.</ref> and the proportion of vandal edits is also higher.<ref>The average percentage of vandal edits on the MPFA is 34.4% (December MPFA analysis), compared to 5% for the average article (WikiProject Vandalism Study 1).</ref> | ||
| ==Counter rationale== | |||
| Reasons not to have the policy. | |||
| * Without exception, featured articles on the main page are brutally vandalized, and many editors spend more time reverting vandals than improving the article. | * Without exception, featured articles on the main page are brutally vandalized, and many editors spend more time reverting vandals than improving the article. | ||
| * It is best to not allow the problem to occur in the first place than wasting time cleaning up. | * It is best to not allow the problem to occur in the first place than wasting time cleaning up. | ||
| * Having to fight vandals |
* Having to fight vandals subjects the article's editors to harassment and is insulting to their work. The attitude that the article on the Main Page should not be protected from unregistered users is insulting and fails to consider the welfare of the people behind the article. | ||
| * Many users waste their time fighting front-page article vandals instead of producing good articles. | * Many users waste their time fighting front-page article vandals instead of producing good articles. | ||
| * Many new and anonymous users come to the talk page to register their complaints and dismay that the FA is being vandalized and request protection.<ref>See, for example, at ]: Today's featured article on ] ].</ref> When it is protected, no good faith new or anonymous users request unprotection, countering the idea that users would prefer a page they can edit to a page that isn't vandalized.<!--If you disagree with this, please provide an example of a good faith editor requesting a change on a talk page after semi-protection of the main page featured article--> | * Many new and anonymous users come to the talk page to register their complaints and dismay that the FA is being vandalized and request protection.<ref>See, for example, at ]: Today's featured article on ] ].</ref> When it is protected, no good faith new or anonymous users request unprotection, countering the idea that users would prefer a page they can edit to a page that isn't vandalized.<!--If you disagree with this, please provide an example of a good faith editor requesting a change on a talk page after semi-protection of the main page featured article--> | ||
| *Most of the logic that applies to main page protection also applies to the main page FA, though the polices are completely different - one being completely protected, the other less so than a normal article. | * Most of the logic that applies to main page protection also applies to the main page FA, though the polices are completely different - one being completely protected, the other less so than a normal article. | ||
| *Registration is required for much more trivial matters than editing the main page, such as uploading a picture to ]. | * Registration is required for much more trivial matters than editing the main page, such as uploading a picture to ]. | ||
| ==Protection== | ==Protection== | ||
Revision as of 06:57, 8 June 2007
 | This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion. Please see the relevant talk page discussion for further information. |
 | This page documents an English Misplaced Pages content guideline. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page. | Shortcut
|
Misplaced Pages's Main Page featured article is one of the most visible and heavily edited on the site. For this reason, it receives a lot of vandal edits from unregistered users visiting Misplaced Pages. It has thus been suggested many times in the past that the featured article should be protected or semi-protected. Full protection of the page is generally prohibited. Administrators may semi-protect the page until the end of the day as a response to heavy vandalism. Circumstances under which semi-protection are appropriate are given below.
Rationale
Against full protection
- Some featured articles may be improved by their time on the main page. Fully protecting the featured articles might postpone or even prevent these improvements.
- A featured article is supposed to "exemplify our very best work, representing Misplaced Pages's unique qualities on the Internet". This includes being editable by anyone. Visitors often tend to look at our most visible articles, and having those articles editable helps attract more good faith editors to the article and to the project.
For semi-protection
- Unprotected articles are not always improved and can be damaged while on the Main Page. There is no evidence that semiprotecting the articles will prevent improvement.
- "Our best work" is not exemplified by a new user coming in and seeing vandalized pages featured on the main page.
- It takes an average response time of 1 minute 25 seconds to repair each vandal edit. This is helped by specialized automated bots such as AntiVandalBot. With an average of 90 vandal edits a day, on average FAs are vandalized for over two hours of total time during their stay on the main page. Major damage can even go uncorrected for days.
- Bots are ineffective against subtle changes, and can even revert to damaged versions.
- The featured article of the day attracts more vandals than other articles, and the proportion of vandal edits is also higher.
- Without exception, featured articles on the main page are brutally vandalized, and many editors spend more time reverting vandals than improving the article.
- It is best to not allow the problem to occur in the first place than wasting time cleaning up.
- Having to fight vandals subjects the article's editors to harassment and is insulting to their work. The attitude that the article on the Main Page should not be protected from unregistered users is insulting and fails to consider the welfare of the people behind the article.
- Many users waste their time fighting front-page article vandals instead of producing good articles.
- Many new and anonymous users come to the talk page to register their complaints and dismay that the FA is being vandalized and request protection. When it is protected, no good faith new or anonymous users request unprotection, countering the idea that users would prefer a page they can edit to a page that isn't vandalized.
- Most of the logic that applies to main page protection also applies to the main page FA, though the polices are completely different - one being completely protected, the other less so than a normal article.
- Registration is required for much more trivial matters than editing the main page, such as uploading a picture to Wikimedia Commons.
Protection
Full protection prevents anyone without administrative powers from editing an article. This should almost never occur on the day's featured article, and should only be used in rare situations where semi-protection is ineffective.
Semi-protection
Semi-protection prevents all unregistered or recently registered users from editing a page. The main page featured article may be semi-protected until the end of the day when, for example, a range of dynamic IP addresses are being used to vandalize the featured article page; where personal information or potentially distressing content is being repeatedly placed onto the article; or where protection is needed to remove harmful vandalism. In general, the higher the number of readers, the greater the likelihood of anonymous user vandalism, and the more the need for semi-protection.
Semi-protection can thus be introduced for brief periods, though admins may prefer to try other methods of dealing with vandalism first, such as blocking problematic accounts and IPs.
Templates
Templates included in the main page FA are sometimes vandalized, and it is more difficult to find the source of this kind of vandalism quickly. It is also less likely that casual readers would need to modify the templates. Admins may semi/full-protect the templates as needed.
Move protection
To qualify for featured article status, the day's featured article will be at a stable and agreed-upon title. Therefore, admins should protect the article from being moved, before it is posted on the main page. For housekeeping and process reasons, this protection should be lifted at the end of an article's stay on the front page.
Requesting and notification
Any type of protection, as well as unprotection, may be requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. All protections and unprotections are automatically logged in the protection log.
Other front page articles
These are covered under the semi-protection policy. Although they can be semi-protected, admins should generally be more cautious in applying protection to these pages. To qualify for semi-protection, articles linked via the front page should be experiencing a higher frequency of vandalism than other articles.
Note that none of these guidelines apply to the main page itself, which is always protected "as a result of repeated vandalism of the Main Page and keeps our welcome mat clean." – Misplaced Pages:Main Page FAQ#Why am I not able to edit the Main Page?
Notes
- For some thoughts on what level of vandalism qualifies for semi-protection, and other considerations, see Misplaced Pages:Rough guide to semi-protection
- Before and after comparison of Diplodocus: Today's featured article on 26 May 2007.
- Misplaced Pages's slogan describes it as 'the 💕 that anyone can edit.'
- Before and after comparison of Simeon I of Bulgaria: Today's featured article on 27 May 2007. There are three errors introduced by vandals: "predecessor =]", "In 817" (should be 917), and "they was resting".
- ^ For detailed data see Misplaced Pages talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles/December Main Page FA analysis - a study on the nature of edits while on the Main Page.
- See also Misplaced Pages talk:Main Page featured article protection#some analysis, Misplaced Pages talk:Main Page featured article protection#December 1-7 analysis and Misplaced Pages talk:Main Page featured article protection#Time taken to correct vandalism
- El Greco: Today's featured article on 19 January 2007. The deletion of the entire biography section by an IP went uncorrected for 2.5 days (correcting diff).
- Reversion by User:MartinBot to a severely damaged version of Basiliscus: Today's featured article on 1 June 2007
- On average a page is edited once every 23 days, and one in twenty edits is a vandal edit. (See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1). Hence, on average an article is vandalised once every 460 days. On average the MPFA is vandalised 90 times during the day (December MPFA analysis), which is 41 400 times more than the average article.
- The average percentage of vandal edits on the MPFA is 34.4% (December MPFA analysis), compared to 5% for the average article (WikiProject Vandalism Study 1).
- See, for example, A request at Talk:Battle of Midway: Today's featured article on 7 June 2007.