Forum:Why no protection in spotlight?

Ok I understand that the undo button works well here, but... I dislike the idea that you have to lower the protection on the main page of a wiki for spotlight! Why? The main page is not a content page and Users should ask Amins if they want something changed on it! On bigger wikis, the community should vote for changes! Starfleet Academy (live long and prosper) 01:40, August 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Protection is a reactive action, not a proactive action. There's often no need to protect the main page.
 * The rationale is that it encourages editing, if the first thing a user sees on a wiki is a page they can't edit, they might assume this is true for the rest of the wiki. --  Random Time  01:43, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh give me a break RT! I don't think that when ever I go on another site! I also read the main page, and heed that more than what is protected or not. Well, while there are vandals I'm proactive! Starfleet Academy (live long and prosper) 01:55, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that, I'm saying that's the rationale. --  Random Time  01:56, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * if the main page has a history of vandalism it can stay protected --Tama 63  01:59, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Monchoman, Randomtime and Tama are all correct. For most wikis there is little need to protect the main page, and protecting against anonymous users and new accounts will in fact stop most vandalism. The requirement is waived for wikis which do have a history of problems with vandalism from registered users on the main page. And Randomtime's explanation of the basic rationale is, in fact, part of the original basis for that spotlight requirement. You may not personally view a wiki that way but others do.

In terms of wiki contributors editing the page, that is, on most wikis, not an issue. In fact it is helpful if they can correct a typo or update a news item. To me this would be part of "assume good faith"; I would trust the members of my wiki to be working to help the wiki, not harm it. Naturally you don't want somebody restructuring the whole main page without wiki agreement. But once again I would assume a member of the wiki would listen to a polite request not to do that. If it is a recurring problem for some reason then at that point the page can be reprotected. -- Wendy (talk ) 02:00, August 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * I just re-looked at the spotlight criteria page and I realized that it said the main page should be "unprotected" which is not very specific; I have clarified that the page simply needs to not be sysop-level protected for editing. I apologize if the wording was causing confusion. -- Wendy (talk ) 02:11, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry RT, I missheeded your post. But I don't agree with the rationale then. I know that is true Tama, but the main page of a wiki is the first thing a visitor sees and I don't want anyone to see a messed up page for any amount to time! This is a similar point to what RandomTime was saying. I see your point Wendy. But still don't agree as you could have put money on it! I just see it as more interference. Ps I was going to ask you this but I didn't want to bother you Wendy, because you must be busy with Spotlight. By the way I got the fact that it only had to less than admin level. Starfleet Academy (live long and prosper) 02:15, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikia actually made a change so you can semi-protect your main page and still get a spotlight. That is a huge victory when usually you just get the wordy and polite version of "tough, that's the way it is." -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 20 Aug 2011 11:32 PM Pacific
 * Is that right. Well then the previous battle has ended, but the war is far from over! LOL No... I need to think about the bigger picture...No sorry I understand but still don't agree. The main issue is that you let people make wikis that should never be made, and stop good people from just simply locking the main page of their wiki! It doesn't make sense to me! :) Starfleet Academy (live long and prosper) 07:47, August 21, 2011 (UTC)