User talk:JDS1949

Patrick Stewart

There is no evidence that you tried to edit Patrick Stewart, not at that article nor the record of all of your contributions. Unless you clicked on Publish changes at the bottom, nothing is saved. Also, Wikipedia and the Foundation are separate entities. The Foundation 'owns' Wikipedia, but all of the editing is by unpaid volunteers. The article states he was born and early childhood in Jarrow but went to school in Mirfield. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. http://www.mirfieldmemories.co.uk/patrick_stewart.htm confirms it. Not that it matters.

2. What does matter is that a very technically proficient reader, interested in helping edit, could not make any headway after well over an hour of trying to change an error. No "edit" button, as was promised...locked page? Why? Must register an account...read about wiki markup? Give up. Visual editor? Where's the 'template"? ... etc. etc.

If you wish to encourage volunteers, there MUST be a dramatically lower barrier to doing so. If so, I may try again another time. Not now. 2601:542:C47F:B750:24DE:9B4E:32AB:1F7B (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Semi-protected pages like this page cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest." You were unable to edit that article because of the newness of your account. David notMD (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. I understand the specifics of this situation. Case closed.

But: I urge you & your colleagues to reflect how steep the barriers ought to be for "open editing". Undoubtedly you and the kind unpaid volunteers for the Foundation are motivated to ensure careful quality control, and are, by now, fully familiar with your terminology, programming protocols, processes, etc. etc. But if the Wikipedia editing process remains as it is, don't expect any but those with suspiciously strong - & perhaps disruptive?- intent to go through acquiring enough facility to navigate your editing barriers. Jeff 2601:542:C47F:B750:2CD4:FE19:F34C:529A (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of an 'open' encyclopedia

Although the underlying principle is "anyone can edit anything" a cascade of quality mechanisms evolved since the beginnings in 2001. There is anti-vandalism software which automatically reverts obvious vandalism, and people who sign up for vandalism patrol. New-to-Wikipedia editors are advised to use the articles-for-creation process (see WP:YFA) to create drafts that will be reviewed by experienced Reviewers. Editors who by-pass AfC find that their direct-to-mainspace articles are sifted by New Pages Patrol volunteers. Higher profile articles about popular or contentious topics accrue 'watchers.' These are volunteer editors who, every time they log in, see if any changes were made to the articles they have chosen to watch. For example, I 'watch' about 40 nutrition articles. Last, there is a small corps of Administrators - people with years and tens of thousands of edits. They are empowered to indefinitely block editors who abuse the system. That includes undeclared paid editing, using multiple accounts, verbally abusing other editors, etc. Also, any editor can nominate drafts and articles for Speedy deletion, and then an Administrator makes the decision. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The entire system is in no way perfect, but it trends toward continual improvement. David notMD (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]