more wikis
 

Help talk:Main Page

Wikia - creating communities

Is there any reason for these wikis to have their main page protected?

w:c:alex, w:c:ancientcoins, w:c:ao2, w:c:architecture, w:c:ashleesimpson, w:c:asimov, w:c:basket, w:c:bionic, w:c:biotechno, w:c:calgary, w:c:citizensrequired, w:c:codev, w:c:crashban, w:c:disney, w:c:e-austrowegry, w:c:ecovillage, w:c:es.anime, w:c:familyguy, w:c:freelancer, w:c:gaia, w:c:gametheory, w:c:habbo, w:c:inheritance, w:c:inuyasha, w:c:joinme, w:c:kabbalah, w:c:kanzaka, w:c:ko.half-life, w:c:kwish, w:c:linguist, w:c:lost, w:c:lucid, w:c:micropedia, w:c:mozilla, w:c:n, w:c:nin, w:c:p2p, w:c:peize, w:c:pieniny, w:c:poker, w:c:prowrestling, w:c:pspree, w:c:rct, w:c:ringer, w:c:rpggeneration, w:c:sailormoon, w:c:sca21, w:c:scum, w:c:simpsons, w:c:stexpanded, w:c:th.manga, w:c:tibasic, w:c:tokipona, w:c:wag, w:c:wikillano, w:c:windows, w:c:xao

Angela (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

-- sannse (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • w:c:tibasic
    • Unprotected, left note; they'd been talking about unprotecting anyhow
  • w:c:wag
    • Was emailing Zanimum anyhow; left him a note and asked.
  • w:c:windows
    • Unprotected
  • w:c:xao
    • Unprotected.

As a side note, I've mangled around the text of protection to use as a message template when unprotecting:

Greetings! I have unprotected the Main Page of this wiki.
In very rare cases, the Main Page can be protected, but it should usually remain editable. If you suffer large scale vandalism on your wiki, you might want to consider watching that page more often, or making use of templates to make it harder, though not impossible, to edit. If you're not quite at that stage, though, protection will probably do your wiki more harm than good.
The Main Page will often be the first page a new user sees, and having it uneditable is off-putting, since it implies some sort of hierarchy among editors. New users may not even realize the site is editable if they only see a locked page, and leave without contributing. (Remember that no one owns a Wikicity, not even the founder!) Being the Main Page is not, in itself, a reason for protection, so try not to lock this page unnecessarily. Thanks, and let me know if you need any help! (link to my Central talk)

Mindspillage 17:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think For example, if your wiki is regularly within the top 50 websites in the world and receives millions of hits a day (see Wikipedia), you might have a good reason to lock pages. If you're not quite at that stage, protection will probably do your wiki more harm than good. is a little bit crass. True that you might not want to give users the wrong impression about your wiki on their first visit. However, for small wikis without a lot of people to patrol them, the revert speed for main page vandalism could be hours or days, and vandalism sure would give the wrong impression! Also, if I am not mistaken, Wikipedia's main page has been protected for a lot longer than it has been in the top 50. I had to go back 4 years to find pre-protected edits. How many of the wikis on m:List_of_largest_wikis have unprotected main pages? The Bosnian Wikipedia main page is protected, and it is at the bottom of that list (and doesn't even rank in the top 13 most visited domains on wikipedia.org). The current policy makes it sound like users are being naughty for permanently protecting their main page, when in pratice it seems to be an inevitable step in any wiki's growth. It doesn't prevent modification by non-administrators, it is easy to copy the main page and create your own suggested-change version. 2cents. Splarka 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely spot on! Philralph 11:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
They are less likely to be quickly reverted, but also less likely to be vandalised and it's less likely that vandalism will be seen, so that evens up somewhat. I was one of those that argued loudly for page protection on Wikipedia, after a particularly bad attack (that happened at the same time as a database freeze - nasty). But I do think that there the problem was compounded by the size of the project and the large number of people who saw the problem. On Wikipedia, an image left for 2 minutes is seen by hundreds - on a small wiki it would be seen by many less in a much longer time. Some of the smaller Wikipedias have locked their main pages, but that really just means they have followed the example of larger projects without necessarily seeing the different needs of a small wiki. It's undeniable that you will get more vandalism on the main page if you don't protect, it's a question of whether that is a cost worth paying for the chance of hooking in new contributors. I think it is -- sannse (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary: Unprotecting at the present time seems inapproriate because of current and seemingly ongoing vandalism and the nature of vandalism in the past (apparent strong opposition to sustainability information even existing), but situation can be reconsidered in the future, for example when Main Page redesigned.

One of the main concerns here is that its not just the size of the wiki that'll influence whether or not its susceptable to vandalism, etc., but also the nature of the subject the wiki is about. So although Wikia may strongly argue, and continue to strongly argue, for not over protecting a wiki's Main Page, the actual decision at any particular time perhaps still rests best with those who actually use the wiki (in other words the 'local' consensus). Philralph 13:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Readers need to be aware that claims on this page by Wikia, Inc. owners and employees represent a philosophy and not a science. One such claim is that locking pages is "off-putting." In fact, the choice of whether or not to lock pages is an editorial choice based on which contributors a publication wants to attract. Many and maybe most topical experts are put off by so-called open channels, such as those like Wikipedia where administrators make up rules as they go about who is allowed to edit. So-called open sites are "off-putting" to a majority of professional writers who often uphold high standards of language, citation and factual basis.
Operating a so-called open site is one way of assuring that most professional writers will not contribute. Having pages be open until an administrator decides on a case-by-case basis who they wish to exclude tends to attract writers who prefer a more casual editorial environment. Those casually-oriented editors who prefer quasi-open processes such as that of Wikipedia might tend to have a lower regard for accuracy than those who prefer that editing be restricted to those willing to comply with rigorous standards.
There is no evidence that orderly editorial processes are more "off-putting" than so-called open channels. The open process might practically put off fewer potential contributors, but in the psychological sense offered in the statement that protecting pages is "off-putting", there is no evidence that people generally are more put-off by a secure setting than they are by a setting where anyone can enter under any pretense. Screenname546 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help_talk:Main_Page"