So your suggestion is that to prevent abuse, we only require abusers to
identify with the Foundation? Otherwise we....what, exactly?
A phrase involving the illegalising of catapults and the subsequent shift
in owner demographics comes to mind, here.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Carol Moore DC <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>wrote;wrote:
On 5/9/2013 4:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution, whereby
contributors would identify to the Foundation, but remain at liberty to use
a pseudonymous user name.
Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community roles
(as indeed it is today).
Andreas
That has been my thought as well, for particularly obstreperous editors
and not just admins. Those who manage despite various warning and blocks
to hang on and wreak their havoc editing and behavior wise. (Not to
mention suspected registered sock puppets!)
Once they realize that if they really start acting up they will have to
have to be vetted as a real person, one honestly trying to contribute, they
might think twice about whether they want to "keep it up" - whatever it is.
Of course, you'd probably have to hire a couple people just to decide who
gets to contact their user page and tell them "call the office" and why...
As a person with a strong POV on some topics I tell others with strong
POVs to try to get into the "Wikipedia first" head, which makes it easier
to edit in light of policy and to step back when you know your POV is
getting out of control.
This sort of thing might help with that...
carol in dc
______________________________**_________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergap<https://lists.w…