Are we too protection happy?

[FabuVinny]

As the title says, I'm a little concerned about the recent increased tendency to put articles under protection. It's one thing to use it to stop a conflict and make the participants come to a consensus on the talk page. But I feel that pre-emptive strikes go against the wiki way.

Apparently, it is now a policy to protect anything relevant when there is evidence of a evolution. Well, guess what? Ash's article wasn't protected last week and nobody tried to do anything to Staravia on there. If we get any persistence that forces a protection, fine. However, the last time we want to lock editors out is when common interest is on the article's subject.

Then there's the article for Super Smash Bros. Brawl. When Lucario was first leaked, there was some edit warring over its presence that resulted in a protection. This is fair enough. But that issue has long since cooled and since then it has been on continual protection that won't be released until the game comes out in America. What is the point of this? I've already had to correct a couple of minor issues because normal users couldn't do it themselves.

In summary, the very nature of a wiki is that it is a collaborative effort. I don't think we should lock the majority of our potential contributors out if it is not necessary.

 

[Zhen Lin]

Agreed. Protection should be limited to those cases where there are repeated incidents of people adding incorrect information.

 

[Tina]

....a la MissingNo's page, which kept getting crap such as Biology and Gender differences added.

When there's evidence of an evo, unless it's repeated a couple times, then I think it should be protected, but protecting it from the start... eh.

 

[PAK Man]

I say only protect it if there is evidence that somebody repeatedly keeps adding incorrect or unconfirmed information. If not, then leave it alone. Most of the editors on Bulbapedia realize not to post rumors or unconfirmed information prior to an episode's airing.

The only articles I've protected are policy articles, and I unprotected the List of AG episodes, which turned out to be a mistake on my part.

 

[Treemo]

I think that's ridiculous. Not what you're saying, I agree 100% with you. I mean the amount of protection is utterly ridiculous.

 

[PAK Man]

Sort of on the same subject here, but does anybody happen to know why nearly all of the Pokémon articles are move protected, but the DP Pokémon aren't?

 

[Theryguy512]

Hmm....that's weird........

 

[Zhen Lin]

That's probably a legacy of some anti-vandalism measure taken in the past.

 

[TTEchidna]

So should we move-protect the DP Pokémon too, or unprotect them all?

And I just do the timed protections just in case. I guess I won't unless it's about something everyone's clamoring for... like Aipom.