Wikisource talk:Protection policy

Add topic
Active discussions

75 percentEdit

Should we also allow pages in the 75% stage to be protected in cases where the source is rare? For some of the texts that I have uploaded it is very unlikely that they will be proofread by anybody else in any near future, if ever, due to the rarity of the printed source. I would suggest this addition to the Procedure for protecting pages:

If the source of a text is so rare or unavailable that it is unlikely to be proofread by more than one user it can be protected in the 75% stage, i.e. when proofread by one user.

Any comments? --Christian S 6 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right: not everything is so easy to find. I agree that texts which are rare should be protected in the 75% stage. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 6 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

thanks for writing it. just to make it clear: in my opinion, we do not want to wait until two users have proofread the whole text, or we will protect a very small number of pages, mostly short ones. so maybe "checked" would just mean "have had a quick look at the page an checked its history". ThomasV 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)

We could do that, Thomas, or we could just change the requirements for being proofread. You're right: two users will take quite a bit of time. If you have time, please make the changes, as I will not be back until the 17th. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 9 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)
I have tried to rewrite the procedure for protecting pages. Feel free to comment or change. --Christian S 9 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)

75 or 100Edit

Minor quibble: under Pages to be protected it says:

Once a text has reached the 100% level... it is to be protected for integrity preservation.

Then under Procedure for protecting pages it says:

If the page has not been changed... then an admin is to protect the page and indicate that it is in the 75% level.

Hmm. Then first mention above should probably be changed to reflect the latter idea. - dcljr 08:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that one when I rewrote the protection procedure. I have updated Pages to be protected to include the 75% level. Thanks for pointing it out :) --Christian S 11:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Is it not clear when the 75% level is sufficient for protecting a page. The criteria should not be ambigous. Personally, I think that protection is not a good solution, generally speaking. I already had to unprotected pages in order to improve layout, spelling, etc. Yann 18:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Advantage: Locking textsEdit

Discussion moved here from Wikisource:Scriptorium.

A small point in the post above from Dovi, is that if we had a policy of locking all texts once they were finished, the danger of vandalism would be avoided. In my own field, the history of technology, there is little of value on Gutenberg (or anywhere else of the web for that matter), which is why Wikisource offers great possibilities. An example is the material I recently posted about Sir Samuel Bentham, brother of Jeremy Bentham. I am planning to add more texts about his work in the British Naval Dockyards at the time of the Napoleonic Wars. These were produced for a research project I was involved in recently and I feel they deserve a wider distribution.
I agree that an Info page for EN.WS is highly desirable, and coupled with this we need to have a how-to page on the mechanics of scanning and OCRing texts. I mentioned this a few weeks ago and now I am back from my holidays will get down to starting a draft. We cannot rely on simply copying previously scanned pages from other sites on the web. WS editors needs to be aware that it is not that hard a job to do. Apwoolrich 07:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, we do have such a policy. It's just that it has never been applied very often.Dovi 08:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem with protecting texts (which I think is generally a good idea), is that, even if the text is completely proofread, a user can't go back and make structural changes, formatting changes, add wikipedia links, etc. --CSN 21:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Surely that is the whole point of Wikisource. A user can edit and modify a text up to the stage when it is complete and accurate. It is then locked so that it cannot be vandalised, but if there is good reason for further modification - amendment or upgrading of a Wikisource editorial comment for example, it can be unlocked by an administrator for the work to be done before being locked again. Knowing how much work is made on Wikipedia unscrambling vandalism, I feel it should be a matter of policy that everything here is automatically locked once the editing is complete. We have so few editors so far, and as far as I can see what problems do arise concern the posting of Copyvios, rather then staight vandalism, so we might be able to have procedures that make it difficult. Apwoolrich 07:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
There needs to be a happy medium between a complete lock for vandal protection and the possibility for correction of typos, formatting, or tags. I uploaded several of the Gutenberg texts, such as Leaves of Grass & a bunch of Melville. I found & corrected dozens of typos from the Gutenberg works in the process and I'm sure more remain. One of the advantages of wiki over Gutenberg is the possibility to format in a visually appealing way ... as just a single example, Gutenberg uses all CAPS to indicate italics. Also, placing anchors in the text, or having section headings allows people to link directly to desired portions or quotes. In short, Gutenberg has a more limited aim & rightly limits its texts to achieving that aim ... it's not part of an overarching project like wiki. The Gutenberg fellow emailed me & complimented what I had done with Leaves of Grass. So, two points: (a) wiki has value added to gutenberg, both in integration & in readability (b) they shouldn't be completely locked, but some protection mechanism needs to be in place (i don't know what). -- Wolfman (forgot password, been a while)
Hmm, just remembered that for a few weeks wikipedia had an audit system. The way that worked was that any edit by an anon editor was visually highlighted in the recent changes until it was checked by a registered user. the registered user simply clicked a link indicating they had checked it out. then, it was unbolded. this saved duplication of effort and made sure everything did get checked. unchecked edits were saved in quite a long buffer to give editors a chance to catch up. for some reason, wikipedia dropped that, perhaps the edits were just too fast. but, it might be an ideal way to police for vandalism more efficiently here without resorting to page locks. clearly, the capability is in the software. (Wolfman again) 16:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are some things even modifiable?Edit

Discussion moved from Wikisource:Scriptorium.

Some content here doesn't seem like it should be easily edited, since it's supposed to quote an original source anyway, and shouldn't be modified even to fix typos. An example being the Unabomber Manifesto, which I just found had been maliciously edited and not even discovered for a month. The edits were not easy to notice without looking at the history, and they were fundamental content changes, not just typo fixes. The reality is, something like the Unabomber Manifesto shouldn't be changed even to fix bad spelling or grammar. There is only one manifesto, and it's supposed to be the one written by Ted Kaczynski, not some guy on the internet who thinks paragraph 11 is too racist.-- 23:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Many here agree with you. That's why there is a system (which hasn't gotten off the ground yet--it isn't set in stone and could be dropped) where we are proposing to protect pages once they reach a certain level of completeness as indicated on Wikisource:Text quality and Wikisource:Protection policy.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I feel we should get on with this ASAP. Vandalism does not yet seem to be a major problem, but it is inevitable that a number of our texts will attract it. Even in EB1911 there will be articles which are no longer politically correct in C21 terms and which will be a temptation for people to meddle with. I feel it should be policy that everything should be locked once it has reached a certain level of accuracy. The article's talk page is the place to argue for un-locking for a specific reason. The Unabomber case cited by is all the more reason for implementing the digitisiation policy of having a scan of the original documents available on Commons as well as the Wikisource version - notwithstanding the Band-width needed! Apwoolrich 06:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There seem to be two feelings expressed on this issue: (1) That when texts are "ready" they should be frozen, and (2) that there should always be the opportunity to improve things.

The truth is that there is no contradiction whatsoever between these two things. When the people currently working a particular text feel that it is correct and done, they should freeze it. If, in the future, someone wants to make major or minor improvements, s/he can simply explain what s/he wants to do and request it to be "unfrozen." To me the whole thing seems very simple. Others?Dovi 07:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice way of putting it, Dovi. Yes, the fear that when we protect a page, that it can't be perfected, should be put to rest. Admins will not go around Wikisource protecting every page they see. Only pages that have passed the guidlines on our text quality and protection page will be protected. Users must tell us when they think a text is ready, and then we must verify that claim before protecting. So, ideally, we protect only those pages that are "perfect" (or as near as possible), and any other changes will be very minor (e.g. typos or minor layout changes).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Do we in fact have many page with multiple editors? Its my impression that a lot is done by lone editors who work on a text and just post it. Apwoolrich 18:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will add a topic about locking pages to the 'Help' list, Can an administraor have a look at it make sure I have the procedure right, namely that an editor has to ask for it, and that an administrator will implement it. Requests for unlocking for a good reason have to be made on the article's talk page. Perhaps we might also have a link on the front page where people can list their requests. Apwoolrich 18:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, there is a lot of merit in stabilizing articles against vandalism, or well-meaning but mistaken corrections. However, I fear that by raising the hurdle for changes too high, we are likely to discourage some useful corrections. I suggest that we provide an editable "sandbox" duplicate of any article which is frozen, with a link at the top of Talk. That way someone can make a few typo corrections, add some nice formatting or some html anchors, some attribution tags, or whatever -- without having to go to great lengths to explain exactly what the change is (e.g. line # for a typo, etc). That would obtain the benefits of a freeze, while lowering the cost of making useful changes. (For example, I've found at least ten obvious OCR errors in Gutenberg texts.) Wolfman 00:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Just by chance I made nearly the same suggestion as Wolfman last night on he:. But with one small difference: Rather than suggesting we provide a sandbox duplicate, I suggested that any user who wants to can simply create his/her own duplicate version of the text on which to make editiorial or other changes. This could lead to a number of possible results, all of which are OK:

  • The new text is better (e.g. corrected typos), in which case the old text will be replaced with it by an admin.
  • Both versions are useful (e.g. the old version was text-only, the new version is illustrated), in which case both parallel versions will be kept. (Here it might be a good idea to implement templates to preserve the unity of the text.)
  • The community doesn't see any special value in the new version, in which case the old one is kept and the new one deleted.

In general, however, I still think the normal case would be simply to have an "unprotect" request, and then a "protect" request when the contributor is all done.Dovi 07:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe someone might like to formulate a rule for this along the lines of the last 2 contribtions i.e. a set of instructions for an editor to follow, and post it on *Locking the text Apwoolrich 14:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, what to people thing of [[Template:Protected text]]? It appears like this:

{{Protected text}}

Please feel free to make any useful changes to it. When it is ready, we should start applying it to some sample pages. Dovi 20:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that pages should be easily edited when they are first created and that, once they are reasonably complete, they should be protected. Why, though, have a process for asking the page to be unprotected? It seems like a better idea would be to simply have an official copy of the source, as well as a continuous "working copy". The official copy would be changed whenever a concensus (maybe just the editor and one admin) decides that the working copy is ready for prime time. Of course, if a page were really languishing due to lack of interest, the protection could be removed. This would rarely be necessary, however.
The template contains the option that you suggest. However, there should also be an additional "unprotect" option for those who want it and request it, because if there is a serious amount of work to be done (1) it may feel frustrating to constantly have to go to a subpage; (2) links won't work to the new version (they will send readers to the old one), etc.
I neglected to mention above that the procedure described in the template is best for text templates (though they can be used for regular texts too). The idea is to keep the actual frozen proofread text in a template, while the "regular" page is kept open so that all kinds of administrative and sylistic things can be done freely: Categories, links, language links, author and publication information, etc.Dovi 10:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I like the template, Dovi. I think something along those lines should be used. However, I wonder how it will be used on a protected page? Will the page be protected and have the template slapped on somewhere at the top/bottom of the page? And could you clarify what you mean by "text templates"?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As to where this will go on the protected page, or whether it might go in the "View source" code, I don't have an answer. This is one reason it might be better to experiment first on some sample pages.

As far as "text templates" - this refers to something that doesn't exist much yet on English Wikisource, but which we could start using where appropriate. Usually we use templates for things like charts that appear on many different pages at once. A "text template" is a template that does nothing more than hold text that can be identically displayed on other pages.

It means the following: Let's say you have some typical text, such as the United States Declaration of Independence. The code for that page in the main namespace is what lies directly beneath the displayed text.

But it is also possible to do the same thing differently: The code for United States Declaration of Independence could instead contain links, categories, etc. but no actual text, rather just a display of a text template.

Of what use is this? First of all, it already discourages vandals. Secondly, if there is a need to display a text in more than one context - this is the way to do it. For an example, see Mishnah Tractate Berakhot, where each section of chapter one is kept in an individual template. This allows for the translation to be presented standing alone, or for each individual piece to be accompanied by commentary. But the text remains identical in both contexts.

A final advantage of this - more relevant to the current discussion - is that if the text is kept in a template then it can be protected even without protecting the page in the main namespace, which can be left open to links, categories, and other things that don't affect the actual text that appears. Neverthess, the protection idea can still be used for regular pages too. Dovi 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I need a bit more time to think about this, and I am tied up until Saturday. In principle it looks good and I think will work. I add that if some short pieces are needed to experiment on, there a number in the EB1911 project (start at A) which I have added the text quality box to on the discussion pages.Apwoolrich 20:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the last addition, irrelevant. Templating sounds good. Maybe it should also be somehow available for Wikipedia, so articles could cite the source in-line. Another type of protection which could be useful is letting users add text to the page, but not remove it. I think fairly accurate sources should also be protected, using the working and current versions. Only really accurate sources should be templated. 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Validation and stable versionsEdit

Please note that validation of pages and stable versions of articles are planned to be incorporated into the software soon. It will almost certainly happen in 2006.

While this will not make our discussion and policy of protecting pages irrelevant, it will certainly make the whole issue a less pressing one. We should consider our policy in light of this when it finally happens.Dovi 10:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to know more about this than I do. Could you explain a bit (or, probably even better for you, point me to a place that explains it) so I understand what the developers are going to add? Thanks a bunch!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
All you have to do is read the news in the Wikipedia Signpost once a week :-).
See the links in this article: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-12-19/Semi-protection. Dovi 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection of templatesEdit

Since WS seems to rely much more heavily on templates that WP, I propose that we have a policy on protecting these once thay have been codified and agreed. By chance I have been just reading a user page on WP which included a row about the problems caused to existing pages by altering the parameters of the design of templates. Apwoolrich 12:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

minor modificationsEdit

Sometimes, a minor modification to a protected page is all that is required and an unprotection,edit,reprotect cycle is a waste of admins time. As a result, I have created {{editprotected}}. Any objections to this being included in the official policy? John Vandenberg 04:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection?Edit

How should we protect works like Index:GeorgeTCoker.djvu? It seems that cascading protection could be applied to the individual mainspace pages (that is, Reply to request for military records of G. T. Coker, not Page:GeorgeTCoker.djvu/1), so as to protect both the page itself and the source text at once. On the other hand, it might make more sense to just protect the source text itself (in the page namespace), so that categories and such can be updated by other users. Any thoughts on this? --Spangineerwp (háblame) 04:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I could not get this working on main pages, let alone the Page namespace. With the advent of that superior form of 'protection', I question whether we need to stop users editing anything. Many FT's have been the subject of helpful fixes, people reading texts on the mainpage find typos and such. cygnis insignis 08:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed or sysops only?Edit


The protection policy doesn't specify which kind of protection should be done in which case. I think that texts should only get "Autoconfirmed" protection, unless exceptional cases. This is sufficient to prevent unwanted edits either by newbies or vandals. As an example, I changed the protection level of Gettysburg Address. Yann (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. —Pathoschild 20:46:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The protection policy was never updated as the different kinds of levels of protection were created. Making this clearer and explicit in the policy would help admins as well as contributors.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree in part. Wikisource is different from Wikipedia; the only reason to leave completed works unprotected to anyone but admins is to facilitate organizational changes like page moves, categories, and the like. Edits shouldn't be made to the content of completed works without review; otherwise our texts aren't going to be treated as reliable sources.
I feel that a balanced solution would be to fully protect both proofed and validated works in the page namespace, while using autoconfirm protection in the main namespace. That way categories and such can be added without difficulty, but the content of the works cannot be changed. If it were possible to prevent changing certain portions of a page (i.e., the templates that transclude the page namespace into the main namespace), that would be optimal, but at least in the case of a vandal removing the templates it would be immediately apparent to a reader, unlike textual changes a vandal could make if the articles in the page namespace were unprotected. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 06:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource:Scriptorium#Links to Wikisource transcriptions in US National Archives catalogEdit

A discussion is taking place that has an effect to add some lines to this policy is taking place at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Links to Wikisource transcriptions in US National Archives catalog. The discussion relates to Wikisource:WikiProjects having the ability to present a case for a set of project specific protection based on upon the principle of this policy. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


Please add a notice to Amplify. The reason: For technical reasons, the title s:amplify in the English Wikipedia redirects here, and “s:amplify” is the correct spelling of the title Samplify in the English Wikipedia. -- 09:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the so called "technical reason" is s-colon equals Wikisource just like w-colon equals Wikpedia so you can't use straight shortcuts - end of story. You need to pipe all shortcuts on Wikipedia like so...
  • [[samplify|s:amplify]]
-- George Orwell III (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I consider this   Not done. I have added a message box to the article at w:Talk:Samplify. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

See also: de:V:NESS. -- 17:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Updating policy to current practiceEdit

The policy at the moment states ...

Preservation of integrity and featured texts

The vast majority of documents hosted by Wikisource are not meant to evolve or be edited, since Wikisource collects material that has been published in the past. Wikisource hosts these published documents without corrections (including any typographical errors or historical inaccuracies). Once a page has been fully proofread, no further changes are necessary and the page should be protected.

These pages should contain the template {{locked}}.

Texts which have been selected as Featured texts are considered fully proofread and should be protected accordingly. However, an additional reason to protect derives from their prominent display on the main page. New editors may decide in good faith to correct a mistake that is present in the original work, being unaware of that fact. Alternately, a malicious user may take the opportunity to edit a heavily viewed page in an undesireable manner. Protection resolves these additional problems as well.

These pages should contain the template {{featured}}, but not {{locked}}.

which is not our reality with the existing use of mw:Extension:ProofreadPage, and our good practice for patrolling and autopatrolled users. I propose that we look to simplify the policy, and my suggested update relates to the first paragraph only.

Preservation of integrity and featured textsEdit

The vast majority of documents hosted by Wikisource are not meant to evolve or be edited, since Wikisource collects material that has been published in the past. Wikisource hosts these published documents without corrections (including any typographical errors or historical inaccuracies). Once a page has been fully proofread, no further changes are generally necessary to the body of the work, however it is not practice to lock these works.

If a page is protected these pages should contain the template {{locked}}.

unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2012‎ (UTC).

Allow more protectionEdit

We only have semi and full protection. Even Simple Wiki has cascade, create and move protection while enwiki has pending changes, 30/500, and template protection. Just saying, we need more. 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:75 14:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)