--- Fl Celloguy flcelloguy@hotmail.com wrote:
The proposal would indubitably mean the blocking (using this logged-in only registration) of most AOL IPs, Netscape IPs, school districts, public-use computers, and major corporations.
And how is this wrong?
By only
allowing logged-in users on these IPs (since it is inevitable that all of them would either be blocked indefinitely or blocked consistently),
This is not the case -- editors far outnumber vandals. This would simply force editors who have 1) previously been unlogged in and 2) happen to be on a IP used by vandals, to register and log in. Whats wrong with that?
opinion, is against the spirit of the Wiki - we're here to allow *anyone* to edit, not just those who want to create accounts.
Bah. This affects only vandal IPs, which are fewer than larger. Logging in doesnt (necessarily) compromise anonymity -- not unless there is some unprincipled turning over of user logs to third parties. In fact, logging in offers more anonymity, wheras an IP address is in fact an identifier. Using dynamic IPs for anonymity is just a defacto method to increase anonymity -- it does not in fact *provide such.
This blocking
policy proposal would take us one step closer to not allowing any anonymous editing - AOL, school districts, and public-use computers comprise a large amount of our editing, and many are valuable editors and contributors that we may lose if this policy is implemented.
Bah. Your rant simply repeats a lot of the same claims and fears without basing them in substance. If youre just worried that range blocks would become used too routinely, then thats a concern to address later --when such actually becomes a problem.
SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com