What's wrong with that? I repeat, Wikipedia should let *anyone* edit.
Just
because someone uses AOL doesn't mean s/he should have to register and create an account to edit. We're "forcing" users, to quote from you, to register when the whole point of Wikipedia is that you don't need to register to edit.
I really can't figure out what you're arguing here, though. Because right now, when an AOL IP is blocked, you can't edit using it regardless of whether or not you register. As I understand it, the proposal is to allow logged in users to edit when they otherwise wouldn't. Sure, this might lead to admins being more liberal with IP blocks, but it doesn't require it - whether or not admins are more liberal with IP blocks is a separate issue, and we could pass policies to ensure that this doesn't happen.
True, but right now AOL IP blocks are kept to a minimum, and I haven't seen an AOL range block in a long time. From the proposal: "This new form of blocking will only affect specific IP addresses, most obviously will be AOL, which would almost certainly be blocked due to the level of vandalism. " If this proposal was implemented, it would almost be certain that AOL IPs would be continuously blocked or blocked indefinitely. In addition, so many schools and public-use computers would also almost certainly be blocked using this method. But that's not the main point: the main point is that we're restricting editing from IP addresses, which in itself is against the spirit of wikis and especially of Wikipedia. We're proposing punishing a large majority of internet users for a small percentage of troublesome vandals. In addition, my opinion is that this won't deter vandalism but will instead encourage vandalism. I see very few benefits in this proposal. We don't have a problem with vandalism right now; we have a problem with getting enough contributors to edit and write, as evidenced with the articles [[Bill Gates]] and [[Jane Fonda]]. Are we to scare off contributors, encourage vandalism, and go against the spirit of the wiki? I sure hope not, and I personally think that this policy would be detrimental to Wikipedia.
Thanks.
Flcelloguy
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
On 10/19/05, Fl Celloguy flcelloguy@hotmail.com wrote:
True, but right now AOL IP blocks are kept to a minimum, and I haven't seen an AOL range block in a long time. From the proposal: "This new form of blocking will only affect specific IP addresses, most obviously will be AOL, which would almost certainly be blocked due to the level of vandalism. " If this proposal was implemented, it would almost be certain that AOL IPs would be continuously blocked or blocked indefinitely.
I would pull any such blocks I saw without a second thought.
In addition, so many schools and public-use computers would also almost certainly be blocked using this method.
Doubtful and once again I would pull such blocks
But that's not the main point: the main point is that we're restricting editing from IP addresses, which in itself is against the spirit of wikis and especially of Wikipedia. We're proposing punishing a large majority of internet users
Most don't edit as IPs
In addition, my opinion is that this won't deter vandalism but will instead encourage vandalism.
Huh?
I see very few benefits in this proposal. We don't have a problem with vandalism right now;
Not true.
-- geni
From: Fl Celloguy
True, but right now AOL IP blocks are kept to a minimum, and I haven't seen an AOL range block in a long time. From the proposal: "This new form of blocking will only affect specific IP addresses, most obviously will be AOL, which would almost certainly be blocked due to the level of vandalism. " If this proposal was implemented, it would almost be certain that AOL IPs would be continuously blocked or blocked indefinitely. In addition, so many schools and public-use computers would also almost certainly be blocked using this method. But that's not the main point: the main point is that we're restricting editing from IP addresses, which in itself is against the spirit of wikis and especially of Wikipedia. We're proposing punishing a large majority of internet users for a small percentage of troublesome vandals. In addition, my opinion is that this won't deter vandalism but will instead encourage vandalism. I see very few benefits in this proposal. We don't have a problem with vandalism right now; we have a problem with getting enough contributors to edit and write, as evidenced with the articles [[Bill Gates]] and [[Jane Fonda]]. Are we to scare off contributors, encourage vandalism, and go against the spirit of the wiki? I sure hope not, and I personally think that this policy would be detrimental to Wikipedia.
Also, there are people on the proposal page desperate for it to be introduced because they get blocked frequently.
This new kind of block would only be used when the existing kind of block failed, no IP would be blocked just simply for being shared. And if AOL vandals did stop vandalising, then it would never be blocked at all.
Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Martin Richards wrote: <snip>
Also, there are people on the proposal page desperate for it to be introduced because they get blocked frequently.
This new kind of block would only be used when the existing kind of block failed, no IP would be blocked just simply for being shared. And if AOL vandals did stop vandalising, then it would never be blocked at all.
Here's an idea: how about a way to "selectively" block/unblock users sharing IPs? Eg. when going to the block page:
* Block other users sharing this user's IP? (would enable or disable autoblocker for registered users, would prevent or allow other users on the same IP to keep editing)
* Unblock this user only (would reverse autoblocker for IPs, would allow trusted users to keep editing when hit by IP blocks)
Alternatively, how about a "global whitelist" of users who *won't* be blocked by the autoblocker, ever (unless they are individually blocked)?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
This new kind of block would only be used when the existing kind of block failed, no IP would be blocked just simply for being shared.
So does that mean we're not going to block anonymous proxies simply for being shared? Especially in light of the proposed expansion of those who have access to my IP address, it'd be nice if I could start editing through Tor or something.
Martin
Anthony