This is worth losing a few contributors who just stop by to fix things.

Re: "Because then we'd stop being a wiki, and loose a huge number of contributors who just stop by to fix things, and then stay, but still not exclude persistant troublemakers." Being an inconvenience to legitimate contributors is a valid point. However, it would have at least some effect on vandals. To evade a block, all a vandal has to do is log off and log back on with a new account. However, going through all the steps required by email confirmation (consisting of signing up for a new email account, signing up to Wikipedia, checking the new email account for confirmation, and then logging on to Wikipedia) will take more time than the time required for admins to ban the sockpuppet. The vast majority of vandals won't have the patience to bother with going through all these steps. Most of them are just bothering us because they are bored and they find it amusing, not because they are determined to sabotage our work. This'll probably encourage them to find something better to do. This is worth losing a few contributors who just stop by to fix things. With its exponential growth, Wikipedia can weather the effect on slowing growth caused by adopting much needed quality control mechanisms. Growth is definitely not one of our relative weaknesses next to other encyclopedias online like Britannica and Encarta. Remember, Wikipedia's legitimacy will rest on quality and product, not quantity and process. -172 _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l