I noticed that you all are discussing 142 again.
I'd just like to point out my experience that, after enthusiastically trying to start [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Voting Systems]], I just as quickly abandoned it because I didn't have the time or effort to keep up with the nonsensical edits of 142.
He has knowledge about the subjects he writes about, but the entries he writes are often hodgepodges of related subjects, conjoined in a meaningless way. He frequently uses accepted terminology in non-accepted ways (e.g. instant-runoff voting) or makes up terminology (e.g. disapproval voting), then has long arguments over their meanings.
When I've challenged the veracity of articles he's written, he has never supplied reproducible references (although he has belittled me for failing to see the obviousness of his prose). The amount of effort it takes to challenge an article is more than I'm willing to make anymore.
He also is not willing to join the rest of the community by getting a username; he says he won't do so because he doesn't want his contributions to be tracked. That is part of the reason for the incoherence of this discussion we're having.
Yes, I'll be sorry if we lose some articles on subjects that he has some knowledge about. But, on balance, we're better off without them. And, the reason for the silent ban is because this is a decision we have already made, many times, but could not enforce consistently because he's coming in through a popular dial-up service.
--dk
Dan Keshet wrote:
many times, but could not enforce consistently because he's coming in through a popular dial-up service.
My main concern here is that we ought to be careful that we don't unfairly assume that anyone coming through sympatico is the same person. Can we more completely characterize "bad 142" so that we're generally aware of strengths and weaknesses?
If "bad 142" is reading this, and is offended, then I recommend that he or she get an anonymous email account -- a throwaway hotmail account would do -- and come here and chat about it. Educate us.
I can really understand concern for privacy and anonymity. I understand it a lot less in this context than in most, because what we're doing is as uncontroversial as stamp collecting in most jurisdictions. But if people want privacy and anonymity, hey, that's great with me, because I support those things generally.
But this idea "I won't log in because I don't want to be tracked" doesn't really make sense. From the viewpoint of privacy and anonymity, it's exactly backwards. It's a real pain in the neck for anyone, even me, to figure out an ip number for a logged in user, by the design of the software.
The only reason I can think of for someone like this to not want to log in is a reason that I don't think we can say is valid: the desire to make independent edits that are not watched by the community. Someone with a bad mission, either vandalism or pov, may want to pop in numerous times and make edits without anyone realizing it's the same person again.
--Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Friday 28 February 2003 09:03 am, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I can really understand concern for privacy and anonymity. I understand it a lot less in this context than in most, because what we're doing is as uncontroversial as stamp collecting in most jurisdictions. But if people want privacy and anonymity, hey, that's great with me, because I support those things generally.
But this idea "I won't log in because I don't want to be tracked" doesn't really make sense. From the viewpoint of privacy and anonymity, it's exactly backwards. It's a real pain in the neck for anyone, even me, to figure out an ip number for a logged in user, by the design of the software.
The only reason I can think of for someone like this to not want to log in is a reason that I don't think we can say is valid: the desire to make independent edits that are not watched by the community. Someone with a bad mission, either vandalism or pov, may want to pop in numerous times and make edits without anyone realizing it's the same person again.
How about introducing user accounts that do not require an email address, simply username & password. Then one could say that there is no reason for not making edits under a username, and anonymous editors could be prompted to make an account after a certain number of edits.
WDYT?
Sascha Noyes
- -- Please encrypt all correspondence. PGP key available from: http://individual.utoronto.ca/noyes/snoyes.asc - --
Sascha Noyes wrote:
How about introducing user accounts that do not require an email address, simply username & password. Then one could say that there is no reason for not making edits under a username, and anonymous editors could be prompted to make an account after a certain number of edits.
This is already the case. I think perhaps the login page should make this more clear. Perhaps it should say:
Your e-mail(*): [ ]
And at the bottom of the page:
* Entering an email address is optional. But it enables people to contact you through the website without you having to reveal your email address to them, and it also helps you if you forget your password.
--Jimbo
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think perhaps the login page should make this more clear. Perhaps it should say:
Your e-mail(*): [ ]
And at the bottom of the page:
- Entering an email address is optional. But it enables people to
contact you through the website without you having to reveal your email address to them, and it also helps you if you forget your password.
Done for English -- other languages should submit appropriate updates to the notice.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)