case in point "article probation."

I have never heard of this until today. "Article Probation"

"The community has placed this article on article probation as specified at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Any addition of content that is not properly sourced, does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, or is defamatory will be promptly removed. In addition, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without any further warning. "

Imagine how a n00b feels reading that? Dont screw up or we will ban you. Not very inviting. we wont just remove your edit, we will banish you. no discussion, no appeal, no explanation.

I have already suggested several times that the Edit Notice (the thing you see right above 'save my edit' button) should include a link to the EFF 'blogger legal guide',and advise people not to post defamatory or libelous material. my suggestion has been routinely ignored Decora 16:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

what is 'you may be blocked without further warning'? the idea that violators of rules get to know what they did wrong is a principle as old as the Magna Carta. a good organization does not banish someone without giving a reason.

This is a 'redundant regulation'. It is alreayd the policy, under Biography of Living Person, that any material not properly sourced is immediately removed. What is the extra step of banishing the editor? There are already procedures to ban people who have broken the rules repeatedly. You can also simply lock articles for a while. Why the redundancy?

The upshot is that, if you want to know what drives people away, its that sort of thing. IMHO. Not a lack of a visual editor or whatever. It's the attitude of 'guilty of bad faith until proven innocent'.

Decora 16:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)