Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-36677645-20200114234419/@comment-43421298-20200119114247

TrespassersW RR3 wrote: ... As a result, errors in the old articles will remain forever. That's the one thing I don't quite get in your criticisms. I'm on board with the idea that increased control over editing older articles will mean that some erroneous/unintelligible info will remain there "forever." But the suggested rule change doesn't say you CAN'T change older articles:

"Older articles (two and more updates from current) are considered complete in most cases. Editing these should only be done after consulting the admin team. Older articles are for the most part, considered an accurate snapshot of the game during that release and should therefore not be updated."

While the rule change is certainly designed to LIMIT changes in older articles, it DOES NOT prohibit them. Sure, the limitation means it'll be harder to implement changes - because they have to be explicitly vetted by the admins - but it doesn't mean changes can't be implemented. My guess is, one reason why these changes should be vetted is precisely because "experienced editors hardly check the old series unlike newcomers with low progress" - so, this allows the admins to keep an eye on the changes without having to review all changes to the Wiki every day, just in case someone put a poop emoji where the Ferrari logo should be.

Personally, I'm all for reopening voting, if that's possible, and keeping the vote open for a longer while, so that as many users as possible see those suggested changes and make their own decisions. If the rule changes generate such vocal - even jarring - criticism, maybe it's better if the process itself is "clean."