NSK wrote:

In my wiki I expect the maintainers/authors to prove the validity of

their

writings preferably with external links, but this is different from WP

because anons are not allowed.

I don't see what difference it makes whether an editor is anonymous or whether they created an account.

You cannot expect from an anon to explain why an article is relevant. Anons usually don't even read the policy or they may have just found

WP

from Altavista, Yahoo or Google.

If you could disallow anons, I think you could implement a policy to require editors to explain why their edits are legit, otherwise they

would

be reverted.

It's pretty clear that we can't EXPECT anyone to read any policy. It would be nice - you can't get to the edit box on the edit page without skipping over a bunch of links to things that you are asked to read BEFORE creating your first article - but experience has shown that you can never force anyone to RTFA before they jump in.

And given that fact, the only two solutions I can see are:

1. Delete a lot of crap that people were asked not to create 2. Alter our community standards so we don't mind having a lot of crap, and stop asking people not to create it

Cheers! David...

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information which is confidential and/or legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email.