Wikisource talk:Protection policy

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should we also allow pages in the 75% stage to be protected in cases where the source is rare? For some of the texts that I have uploaded it is very unlikely that they will be proofread by anybody else in any near future, if ever, due to the rarity of the printed source. I would suggest this addition to the Procedure for protecting pages:

If the source of a text is so rare or unavailable that it is unlikely to be proofread by more than one user it can be protected in the 75% stage, i.e. when proofread by one user.

Any comments? --Christian S 6 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right: not everything is so easy to find. I agree that texts which are rare should be protected in the 75% stage. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 6 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

thanks for writing it. just to make it clear: in my opinion, we do not want to wait until two users have proofread the whole text, or we will protect a very small number of pages, mostly short ones. so maybe "checked" would just mean "have had a quick look at the page an checked its history". ThomasV 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)

We could do that, Thomas, or we could just change the requirements for being proofread. You're right: two users will take quite a bit of time. If you have time, please make the changes, as I will not be back until the 17th. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 9 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)
I have tried to rewrite the procedure for protecting pages. Feel free to comment or change. --Christian S 9 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)

75 or 100[edit]

Minor quibble: under Pages to be protected it says:

Once a text has reached the 100% level... it is to be protected for integrity preservation.

Then under Procedure for protecting pages it says:

If the page has not been changed... then an admin is to protect the page and indicate that it is in the 75% level.

Hmm. Then first mention above should probably be changed to reflect the latter idea. - dcljr 08:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, I missed that one when I rewrote the protection procedure. I have updated Pages to be protected to include the 75% level. Thanks for pointing it out :) --Christian S 11:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it not clear when the 75% level is sufficient for protecting a page. The criteria should not be ambigous. Personally, I think that protection is not a good solution, generally speaking. I already had to unprotected pages in order to improve layout, spelling, etc. Yann 18:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]