333
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + +
Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points? (view source)
Revision as of 12:41, March 24, 2008
, 12:41, March 24, 2008no edit summary
:I unblocked several dozen article which had a shortage of "opposing views". There is nothing wrong with a page having a balance of conservative and liberal views on matters of opinion, such as whether the [[minimum wage]] actually benefits inner city blacks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I unblocked several dozen article which had a shortage of "opposing views". There is nothing wrong with a page having a balance of conservative and liberal views on matters of opinion, such as whether the [[minimum wage]] actually benefits inner city blacks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::In general most sysops seem more than happy to leave pages unlocked, even if their content is controversial. Sadly there are a few pages which have been permanently locked for the cause of preventing vandalism. This reason is dubious, often the pages in question have experienced minimal vandalism whereas other, more frequent targets have never been protected. Also the indefinite locking of a page to prevent short term vandalism, especially given the rigorous checking of all edits, does seem somewhat ludicrous. It is in these cases that the premise of this debate may be correct, and perhaps those sysops who do regularly protect pages could consider unprotecting them on a trial basis, to see if the problems do lie in vandalism, or whether they lie in opposing viewpoints. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:41, 24 March 2008 (EDT)