User:Worm That Turned/PC Review Recommend Phase

How you can help

Please take your time and read through the concerns below. For each item, you are invited to offer a proposal that addresses the concern. Where possible, you are encouraged to provide examples, references, diffs and so on in order to support your viewpoint. There isn't a limit on the scope of your proposals; the sky is the limit, here. Most importantly, Answer as few or as many questions as you wish. All responses are evaluated, so any information you provide is helpful.

Once you've provided your responses, please encourage other editors to take part in the review. We stress that editors who didn't participate in the previous phases are encouraged to participate now - more responses will improve the quality of research, as well as increasing the likelihood of producing meaningful results. Once again, thank you for taking part!

Question one

Pending changes was activated on a trial basis. Although that trial has been over for some time pending changes continues to be used. Should we keep pending changes in use and continue discussing how it is to be used, remove it from all articles until there is a consensus based policy in place, or reject it entirely? (Note that even if you answer that it should be turned off you are still free to answer the remaining questions as you see fit.)

• Answer: Keep it on. I feel it is a useful feature, and whilst it should not be expanded until the community has agreed its level of use, I feel it is causing no problems whilst on. The only reason I can see for turning it off is that some people only agreed to turning it on on the basis that it would be turned off, but "consensus can change" and now we've seen it in action, I feel that consensus has changed.

Question two

The exact purpose of pending changes protection has never been clearly defined. Should it be used only to prevent edits that meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism? If not, what other types of problematic edits may be rejected? Does it make a difference if the edit contains claims about a living person?

• Answer: I see pending changes as a method for stopping vandalism only. I would not object to a system where only sourced edits were allowed through pending changes - but unless there was a system like that it can only be used to stop vandalism. Reviewers should not be expected to be subject matter experts or be able to spot every incorrect edit. Regarding BLP, if the edit meets the BLP policy it should be let through, there should not be any special "pending changes rules" for BLPs.

Question three

Many users have expressed the view that pending changes is confusing or difficult to use. Have you found the current interface to be confusing or difficult to use? What improvements would you like to see to the interface? How could it be made more user-friendly? Please try to be constructive and specific rather than general, and feel free to read or edit the list of feature ideas on mediawiki.org.

• Answer: No, I've found it very easy to use, especially since the first update. However, I'm not a useability expert and would have no problems with people looking into this. As an addendum - from a new users point of view, it's not clear why their edits are no showing up, is there any possibility of highlighting the unreviewed change either in the edit box or on the page? (so if a section has been editted, the section remains highlighted until the change has been approved/not approved)

Question four

Users have expressed a concern that Pending Changes can discourage or even drive away inexperienced users or users who do not wish to register an account. Other users expressed the view that PC was less of a barrier than semi-protection and may encourage new users. Do you believe pending changes will prevent new users from contributing? Do you believe it to be more or less of a barrier than semi-protection? If it is kept, how do we balance this concern with the concern of preventing vandalism to Wikipedia?

• Answer: It's less of a barrier than semi-protection, but unfortunately it will stop some editors. The tentative first edits are made with the exhilaration of seeing the change in instantly. However, as I'm saying that it should only be used to stop vandalism - I do not think the number of new editors who would be driven off would be particularly high. An edit notice on PC pages might help saying "This page is currently having edits reviewed before display".

Question five

Generally, when should pending changes be used? Should it be considered in accordance with the existing protection policy on the same basis as semi protection, or should the bar for PC be higher or lower than that used for semi-protection? Please be as specific as possible.

• Answer: Pending changes should be used on mid- to high-vandalism articles prior to semi-protection, and possibly for longer periods. Semi-protection should be considered when PC is not working.

Question six

There is a general consensus that protecting biographies of living persons and other articles that contain information about living persons is a top priority due to the possibility of libel and real harm to real persons. Some have proposed that PC be used more liberally on BLPs or even suggested that pending changes protection should be added to all BLP articles. Should the standards for using PC be lower on BLP articles? What should the standards be for articles wherein the primary topic is not biographical but there is still content related to living persons? Should we automatically add it to all BLPs?

• Answer: I wouldn't have a problem adding it to all BLPs, as they are not all watched. But if it is not added to all BLPs, then the bar should be the same for all articles - if it is regularly vandalised, give it PC protection.

Question seven

During the trial period pending changes was added on an indefinite basis to many articles. Should pending changes be added indefinitely by default, be subject to the same restrictions as other forms of protection, or have some new criterion for determining length of protection? If so what should that criterion be?

• Answer: I feel that it should be indefinite by default but applied at the administrator's discretion. If the admin feels that a specific period will be sufficient (say 3 months either side of an event) - I would not have an issue.

Question eight

In the second phase, many users indicated that they believed that the standards for granting reviewer user right were too low, while others felt that being easy to acquire was a positive trait. What standards should be used to grant the reviewer right? What standards should be used to justify revoking it?

• Answer: Any trusted editor should be given the reviewer right - and I expect the level of trust should be around the same level that we hold to move pages. Admittedly, I feel the level we're currently using for moving pages is slightly too low, but I'd say something along the lines of "an editor in good standing, who requests it". If an editor is sanctioned for something that would affect PC, it should be revoked (eg block for POV pushing or vandalism). Also it should be removed in clear cases of PC abuse.

Question nine

What specifically should be expected of reviewers? If they reject an edit, should they inform the user why the edit was rejected if the reason was something other than obvious vandalism? Should this notification be just in the edit summary, or should it be on the article talk page or the user's talk page?

• Answer: A clear edit summary explaining the reason, but since I feel that it should only be used for vandalism, this should not be a major issue. Message on talk page is overkill.

Question ten

Are we done yet? That is, do you feel the results of this questionnaire combined with the previous discussions at the RFC and elsewhere are sufficient to determine a consensus? If not, what should be done next? Should there be a poll, a more specific policy proposal, another RFC, or some other option that has not yet been tried?

• Answer: I feel that this questionnaire should help, depending on the uptake. It is too big an issue to get unanimous consent, and an RfC will create an atmosphere where the most vocal will end up bun-fighting. Assuming the uptake of the RfC is good, I think that it will show very clearly how the community feels - not just the vocal people.

Comment section

This section is for any further comments, suggestions, criticisms, or anything else you would like to say about either pending changes or this process that was not covered by the above questions.