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