Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Analysis
 | This is a page for preliminary analysis of data from the RFC. It is not intended for discussion of these results, such discussion should take place on the main RFC talk page. |
Collected data
The following charts show the number of endorsements for each topic. Related topics are grouped together. For those topics that were created later in the process, an additional number of time-scaled votes are shown based on the number of hours the given topic was open as compared to the original topics. This isn't a perfect measure because some users revisited the topics and cast additional votes. It is just a first approximation at what the total number of votes may have been if the topic had been open for the full length of time. Bear in mind that some endorsements contained caveats.
Preliminary analysis
Most endorsed views:
- PC helps with libel on BLPs-67 endorsements
- PC is confusing-61 endorsements
- PC reduces vandalism, but so does semi-protection-59 endorsements
- Now that the trial is over, and Jimmy Wales has approved it, it should be used as is available.-56 endorsements *note that various users took exception to the suggestion that Jimbo's approval was relevant and it was removed and later replaced
- Pending changes reduces vandalism-55 endorsements
Least endorsed
- The Final vote should be tacked to the next Arbcom election-1 endorsement
- PC should not be integrated with external reviewing tools-2 endorsements
- Tie = PC is not confusing-3 endorsements/Recommend a larger, extended review of PC-3 endorsements/A "class system" already exists in WP-3 endorsements
- Tie = PC is not for preventing most good-faith edits-4 endorsements/PC permanent on all articles-4 endorsements/PC is a fact of life per Jimbo's decision-4 endorsements
- Tie = PC should be applied on an edit by edit basis-5 endorsements/PC should be integrated with external reviewing tools-5 endorsements/PC will drive away the good and keep the bad-5 endorsements