Comments:Wikipedia plans to introduce new editing restrictions on articles

Has Wikipedia done the right thing? What is your opinion on this new editorial process?
Good, but I'm confused. Can you edit if you're not a user? what did you say about pages for live people? love ya at wiki.

Yawn! Hmm, I wonder what's in my navel today. Is that some bellybutton lint or wikipedia editing restrictions? --65.51.209.124 (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy after death
apologies for not researching before commenting. when would this "biographies of living people" status be lifted? Kennedy and Micheal Jackson have had the highest rate of vandalism after their death. also, once this program is installed for living Bios, it seems inevitable to spread to other forms of articles, possibly all. a proxy for things to come. it may help remove petty vandalism. but i wonder how well it will deal with mis/disinformation. we'll see.99.147.127.165 (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

These need to be seriously experienced users
Anyone who registers with Wikipedia and has their account active for a few days could potentially approve the changes to these articles. Therefore, formerly anonymous users could still override the new restrictions. Having said that, I believe that this new approval process, and which users qualify for approving changes, should be based not only on the time that such a user has had an active account (I would suggest a few months' time, at least), but also how many edits he or she has made and whether those edits are notable, useful changes (i.e., not just vandalism; this is an "open-ended" scenario). Common sense should be used in this case. --  M  (speak/spoken) 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That is agreat idea. -Jessie Owenby

whats the point? there's bots up the arse to revert vandalism, why bother complicating stuff?
 * Bots revert blatant and obvious vandalism (eg. "JOHN IS GAY"). It's the more subtle libel that's the real problem. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great idea. Its not hard to register an account at all, and no personal information is required, not even an email address. If you really want to edit, register an account. There are similar systems in place for semi-protected articles, only established, registered users can edit those. Not all vandalism is reverted by bots, users revert a large chunk of it, and even then, not all of it gets reverted. Dillard421 (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Leave it the way it is.

Has Wikipedia done the right thing? What is your opinion on this new editorial process?
Good Idea. but It needs to factor in more experience. people should have to be members for at least a month and have 100 acceppted contributions before they are not flagged. Desalvionjr (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

wikipaedia is supposed to be "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit".
it violates the purpose of wikipaedia to began to heavily scrutinize edits or lock whole pages from editing.wikipaedia's refusal to allow any user to freely edit biography's is merely another step in the wrong direction.the first thing wikipaedia did wrong was to only allow logged in,experienced users to create new pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.60.254 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That worked well for years, but now that Wikipedia has become less experimental and less mature, it needs some sort of editorial reviewing process to control the quality of its articles. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)