[WikiEN-l] Are there really articles on Wikipedia that need fixing, or just gossip that needs hashed?

[Matthew Brown]

On 8/6/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> Likewise, saying "you aren't banned, you're just banned from the only method
> you want to use" is equivalent to "you are banned".

There is a difference between being banned (specific, targeted bar
against a specific editor editing Wikipedia through any method
available) and being unable to edit because the way you (choose/need)
to do so has been blocked because of a persistent vandal and troll
problem.

AB is in the same situation as someone whose school has been
range-blocked because of persistent vandalism from that range that the
school admins are unable/unwilling to deal with.

Sure, the immediate results are the same - being unable to edit.
However, AB is able, as is the student whose school is blocked, to
edit should another means of access become available to them.

And yes, it sucks.  I am quite aware that it sucks.  However,
Wikipedia right now is in the situation where a user's originating IP
is pretty much the basis for any ability to bar editing at all for
anyone, since we have so few requirements to create an account.  If we
permit anonymizing services such as Tor, we effectively no longer have
any way to block users or track them at all.

The only other functioning alternative, IMO, is to make it require a
lot more effort to qualify for an account, so that it is much harder
to create a new Wikipedia identity.  I'd submit that doing that is
going to change the Wikipedia environment a heck of a lot more than
banning anonymizing proxies does.  (The other alternative, which
appears to be soundly rejected, is giving up on any attempt to use
technical information about a user's internet connection and HTTP
requests to back up suspicions of sockpuppetry/resurrection).

-Matt