<P>I don't think there is an issue of anons being "lesser-users" and I support allowing anons to edit because I believe it encourages new editors to try out the Wiki through its openness.</P>
<P>HOWEVER . . . if we don't think anons bear watching, why do we have an option to show only anons on "Recent Changes"? To answer my own question, if you're working cleanup there, you are most likely to find vandalism from anons, especially on "N" articles. We don't need to confuse practical considerations with class issues.</P>
<P>Cecropia<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: Timwi <TIMWI@GMX.NET><BR>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:05:29 +0100 <BR>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org <BR>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: unwished corrections and unwished articles <BR><BR>> Anthere wrote: <BR>> <BR>> > A sysop **blocked** a user for wikifying a term, which will perhaps be <BR>> > an article later ? <BR>> <BR>> Their justification (after I communicated with them) was that it looked <BR>> like "oddball vandalism" simply because it was an anonymous IP address <BR>> adding the same link to many pages. <BR>> <BR>> I would like to encourage ALL sysops to *stop* thinking of IP addresses <BR>> as a "lower caste". Do *not* expect people to open accounts; why should <BR>> they, and why should you force them to? <BR>> <BR>> Greetings, <BR>> Timwi <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> WikiEN-l mailing list <BR>> WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org <BR>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l <BR></P><BR>
--
<p>___________________________________________________________<br>Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com<br>
<a href="http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/payment/adtracking.cgi?bannercode=adsfreejump01" target="_blank">http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup</a></p>