On 11/30/05, Keith Old <keithold(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We should look again at allowing anonymous edits, This seems to have been
the root of the problem.
Blogs and webforums have more rigorous requirements to leave remarks than
we
do. I acknowledge that most anonymous editors contribute in good faith but
many do not.
Further, the cost of cleaning up after the ones who do not detracts from
the
main work of writing the encyclopedia. I am not calling for credentialism
but registering as a user.
It also means that many users are blocked for 24 hours as a result of
sharing an IP with a vandal. I had to change my ISP last year because of
vandalism from someone else. We also have had rogue registered users but
at
least we have procedures to deal with those.
Further, the anonymous nature of the edits means that many edits are
unfairly discounted because people can't be sure of the value of the
edits.
As a volunteer of the help desk, I am aware of at least two professors who
have tried to edit but have had their edits removed. That may have been
fair
enough in one case but the point remains. A point made by Professor X
carries much more weight than a point made by IP 123.xx.
A similar problem occurs with copyvios. On a couple of occasions, people
have uploaded material from their personal webpages which have been speedy
deleted as copyvios. If they were identified, there would have been a
greater chance that their right would have been recognised.
We need to do a cost/benefit analysis showing what we gain from allowing
anonymous edits compared to the losses of cleaning up vandalism from
anonymous edits.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
I wholeheartedly agree. I think allowing anonymous edits causes more
problems than it solves. Registering is easy, and should not be a big
deterrent to anyone for any reason I can think of. While I'm sure there are
benefits, as Keith said they have to be seriously weighed against the
disadvantages.
--
User:Wesley