Richard Grevers wrote:
Daniel, I have posted this a couple of times previously, and not yet been challenged on it: I.P. blocking is ineffective against dial up users and, to a lesser extent, broadband users. Dial up users are assigned a new IP No. from their I SP's pool each time they reconnect, and seldom receive the same number twice. As a broadband user, I can change my IP number simply by cycling up the power on my router.
Well, you're right to an extent, but we have found that in most cases of simple drive-by vandalism, it works just fine. Most people aren't so motivated as to disconnect/reconnect just to keep being jerks, esp. knowing that someone will just block them again quickly.
An IP block should only be used if there is a pattern of abuse from the same IP No. over a couple of days or longer. Otherwise there is the risk of blocking innocent users dialing up from the same Internet provider.
Only editing is affected, not reading, and the chances of some innocent person unluckily getting a banned *single ip* just when they happen to want to edit wikipedia is pretty low. It *is* a concern, mind you, but considering the odds -- how many dynamic ips are there, versus how many people edit wikipedia in a way -- it's less of a concern than letting vandals waste too much of our time.
We could end all vandalism by requiring everyone to sign in, and requiring everyone to apply for permission to edit. We could be Nupedia, with onerous-sounding participation requirements. And we could have 12 articles. :-( That's the tradeoff that we face: either deal with vandals, or get rid of vandals and lose the incredible value of openness.
Of course, it is possible that Wikipedia has a higher than usual proportion of users who have a fixed IP numbers because they are connecting from universities or similar institutions.
That's probably true.
--Jimbo