Rebecca a écrit:
With the idea technical measures of banning certain users from certain articles, I think Ed's right on the money. Ed's sensible enough to know that he might not be able to stay neutral on global warming, so he doesn't edit articles related to this. There's some topics on which I'm the same. But for those users who don't know any better, I think this would be an apt solution. I know it's already been done in certain cases by the ArbCom, but I'd like to see it in greater use and perhaps (if it was to become a technical measure) able to be acted upon by any sysop (though of course, with stringent guidelines to avoid abuse). The idea of banning IPs from editing certain articles, I believe, would be very wise as well.
I do not support this last idea at all. The greatness of Wikipedia is in large part due to its openness toward all editors, ip included.
There is NO evidence in my view that IPS are more prone to edit waring than identified users.
There is NO evidence in my view that IPS are more biaised than identified users.
I however agree that IPs are probably more often vandals than pseudos.
Actually, I would even dare say that I think edit wars are much more often the fact of loggued-in users. Simply because while edit wars may be triggered by a disagreement, they are LARGELY fueled by pre-existing bad identified relationships between 2 editors.
If we want to reduce edit wars, the solution may not be to ban people, but to improve their tolerance to each other. If we want to limit pov, the solution is not to limit the number of editors, but on contrary to increase it.
ant