 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia page protections are, by their nature, in contempt of Wikipedia:5P3 which is a constituting principle of the encyclopedia. Page protection is dystopian and can be counterproductive especially when used without merit. Applying any form of protection to a page de facto removes the technical ability for anybody to be able to edit content which damages Wikipedia as it can inhibit useful contributions. Conversely, there are situations which applying page protections can protect Wikipedia from damage. It is important that a user privileged with page protection abilities objectively balances the need to protect an article with the potential loss of useful content which could be contributed by editors who are rendered unable to edit the content after page protection is applied. There is also a risk that by protecting content on Wikipedia, members of the public can form a perception that Wikipedia is censored. This disruption to Wikipedia’s public image should also be factored into balancing the need to protect an article with the potential damage from doing so.
The test of substantiating causation for implementing page protection edit
There is a three-pronged test which can be applied in situations when a Wikipedia editor with page protecting privileges considers protecting a page. The aim of this test is to ensure, so far as possible, that the act of protecting a page does not adversely affect Wikipedia.
- Does protecting the content practically protect the page from edits which disrupt the contents integrity? The burden of proof should be on the Wikipedia editor protecting the page to be able to prove with evidence that damage has occurred and will continue to occur if page protection is not instituted. For example, a person uses various IP addresses (that cannot be preventatively blocked) to disruptively edit the page. Protecting the page will prevent that user from continuing in their disruptive edits.
- Is there no less of a totalitarian way to prevent further disruptive edits to the article by utilizing other tools which specifically target disruptive editors without the risk of collateral damage? For example, an edit war is occurring on an article. Is there not a way for that user to be investigated and or warned which might prevent them from further disruptive editing and can that user be blocked to prevent further disruptive editing? Are those courses of action practically impossible?
- Does the benefit in protecting the content from an ongoing pattern of disruptive behaviour outweigh the damage caused by protecting it? For example, would the continued edits to the article be so publicly egregious that an ordinary person who sees the disruption would seek themselves to use page protection as a form of remedy.
If the answer to each of these tests is “yes” then it would be considered prudent to protect the article with the least disruptive level of protection which is required to remedy the disruption.