Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Peteforsyth in topic New PhD dissertation

2nd usage of spro.: d:Q183[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T73519 resolved

above. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

See history of that page. Superprotect was used there for technical reasons: editing would have caused the software to crash. After the bug was fixed, superprotect has been removed from the page. Romaine (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Romaine: Two questions:
Would any other form of protection have served the same purpose? (NB: "…There was no edits since July 2014 (because it was not possible to edit Q183 at all).…" vlsergey on Phabricator.)
Is there any public log of every super protect use?
From appearances, the use of super protected may have been both useless and knee-jerk in this case. Which, as I understand it, is exactly the reason some oppose it. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 14:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I have not enough knowledge about this. I just wanted to have a good overview of its usage, and the reasons for it. For more details I think it would be better to ask the developers or the user who had used it. Romaine (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your response!
From your response I believe it is safe to say we do not know if there were technical reasons for using Superprotect. Further, we can say we do not know if there have been further uses. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 20:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Génial! Brilliant![edit]

Great news from AKlepper! Hoping we can mend some bridges and fill some chasms. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 19:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

How to cover removal[edit]

The removal of Superprotect, in spite of being acknowledged as significant, has been done (thus far) in a piecemeal way. There has been no blog post, no press release; instead, several messages from several different people, using varied language:

These messages all emphasize different points. What's the best way to cover them here? Should we link to all of them? If so, should this page have a whole separate section on the removal?

I think the main issue is that somebody without any background, but knowing this was a significant event in Wikimedia history, should be well served by a page like this. What's the right balance between glossing over important details, and drowning out the broad themes with too many details and links? -Pete F (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

At this point I would suggest a separate section, and a complete list of links to relevant resources. The actual text of the section, in my opinion, should be relatively brief and stick to the simplest over-view.
The reason for such simplicity (yet over-abundance of source linkages) is that at this time we cannot reasonably grasp the historic significance of the event. It must be left to future writers to gauge what the results of the Superprotect period might be. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 05:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

New PhD dissertation[edit]

Superprotect, including this page and some wikimedians, are cited in --Nemo 15:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunate that the authors do not appear to have researched the issue very closely. The statement idea that the WMF was asked to "give in to the vocal and productive community members’ concerns" is rather irritating, considering that the letter recommended a very different approach to decision-making: "When new software substantially changes the way that our work and the work of our colleagues is presented to the world, it should be deployed only where there is broad agreement that it advances our vision and our strategic goals." -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply