Personally, I think the new blocking policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal) will do more more harm than good. 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. 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), in my opinion, is against the spirit of the Wiki - we're here to allow *anyone* to edit, not just those who want to create accounts. I believe that not allowing any anonymous editing has already been extensively discussed at the Village Pump, and soundly rejected. 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.

In addition, I also think that this policy will actually increase vandalism. Currently, if someone is blocked on a static IP address, s/he cannot log-in or register and continue the vandalism - however, under this policy, the vandal can simply create more and more accounts without limits. While there has been some discussion regarding restricting the creation of accounts under these blocked IPs, I still feel that this idea would encourage vandalism. The measures currently being discussed are email validation, captchas (the funny looking boxes that you have to type in the code for), and a one account creation per hour limit if blocked. The email idea also goes against the fundamental principle of the wiki, and of Wikipedia - anyone should be able to edit or register. I know I personally wouldn't have registered and started contributing here if an email address is required. Regarding captchas - this also would prove ineffective, since the vast majority of vandalism is not automated, but done by persistant vandals. Finally, the one-hour account-creation would also have a *huge* detrimental effect - imagine if AOL IPs were restricted to only one new account per hour. While there are multiple AOL IP addresses, because most would indubitably have been blocked under this new block, it would be highly difficult - and frustrating - to create an account on all those major IP providers and public-use computers. Are we to willingly shun away hundreds of potential contributers in the hope that vandals will not be determined enough to create more accounts?

While I understand the feelings of those who have AOL or use these IPs and are inadvertantly prohibited from editing, I feel that there is too much loss in this new blocking policy. Instead, we should just attempt to keep blocks on these IP ranges at a minimal, considering that AOL IPs often change with every page load. This new policy would not only fail to effectively stop vandalism, but would also contradict our very principles - that anyone can edit Wikipedia. We should not discriminate against anyone willing to participage just because s/he is on AOL.

Thus, it is my humble opinion that this new blocking policy would be highly detrimental to Wikipedia. As always, I'm seeking your opinions on this matter, and I urge everyone, regardless of whether you agree with me or not, to give your opinion at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal]]. Many thanks.

Regards,

Flcelloguy

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

_________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement