I am an AOL user. I am also a sysop and I have been contributing to Wikipedia for well over a year. I have found myself blocked on several occasions because of blocks against Michael. There is absolutely no justification for blocking thousands of potential users like me just because we happen to use AOL. There must be some other solution.
Danny
--- daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I am an AOL user. I am also a sysop and I have been contributing to Wikipedia for well over a year. I have found myself blocked on several occasions because of blocks against Michael. There is absolutely no justification for blocking thousands of potential users like me just because we happen to use AOL. There must be some other solution.
Danny
Danny, the company you chose to use to provide internet access and other services is unwilling to alter its business practices to accomodate the needs of other web sites to provide defense against malicious persons.
You will note that AOL is the only ISP which does not assign session-length IPs for dialup users. This is a technical feature they have decided to implement in order to disallow banning of internet users from non-AOL sites, since by the strength of their numbers they can influence content providers to not block this many potential customers.
Some people will counter that because of AOL's infrastructure, they are incapable of assigning session-length IPs. I say that they have the money to do so, they are just unwilling. (everybody else does it, so it can't be that hard).
I feel your pain, but AOL's policy is harming the W, both by allowing Michael and Co to rampage and by forcing many people to spend their time and energy trying to figure out a way around this problem.
You have an option: You can leave AOL and use a different provider.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Christopher Mahan wrote:
You will note that AOL is the only ISP which does not assign session-length IPs for dialup users. This is a technical feature they have decided to implement in order to disallow banning of internet users from non-AOL sites, since by the strength of their numbers they can influence content providers to not block this many potential customers.
When you say "in order to" are you saying that this is their motivation for the way they do this? I doubt it, that's all I'm saying. I mean, if anything, their system (whereby one person may show up at a large number of ips during a single session, as far as a website can see) would likely lead to *more* problems for AOL users than *less*.
You have an option: You can leave AOL and use a different provider.
I disagree completely.
My understanding is that AOL is actually more often at fault for being *overly* zealous about cancelling people's accounts, not for not taking action. I remember reading a story that said that people have been cancelled based on sending a couple of emails to an ex-girlfriend, etc.
I think if anyone says boo about an AOL user, the account will be cancelled.
It just makes good business sense for AOL to be that way. An ISP that is willing to stand up for users who get themselves into trouble on the net is going to incur some serious costs looking into the allegations, sorting out who is right or wrong, etc. Believe me, it's my nearly-fulltime job on Wikipedia. :-)
It's a lot easier to just kick people off -- they aren't the customers you want. The customers you want just pay their money and don't cause any trouble. That's profitable. A person who causes trouble is just going to cost you money in dealing with complaints.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
When you say "in order to" are you saying that this is their motivation for the way they do this? I doubt it, that's all I'm saying. I mean, if anything, their system (whereby one person may show up at a large number of ips during a single session, as far as a website can see) would likely lead to *more* problems for AOL users than *less*.
Yeah, that's exactly their motivation. They live to make money, and as far as they're concerned, if they could pull all of the internet's valuable content into their proprietary network they would just fall all over themselves with glee. Short of that, they'll be the big bad boy on the block, making sure their 27 million members get access to all the internet, so they can sell (that's SELL) their software and access to the great unwashed masses.
As far as problems for AOL users, they don't exacly care that the internet works less "smoothly" than their own network.
Now, don't take me wrong, I like AOL for two reasons: It allows grandmas everywhere to connect to the web and provides decent tech support to them. The other reason is that for a long time they essentially funded Mozilla development by keeping Netscape software designers employed.
You have an option: You can leave AOL and use a different
provider.
I disagree completely.
I meant to say that the Onus should not fall on W, because the W is now in the corner where AOL and Michael are concerned, whereas users do have the choice of ISPs.
Granted, it's a less than perfect situation. I apologize if I originally had failed to convey my meaning correctly.
My understanding is that AOL is actually more often at fault for being *overly* zealous about cancelling people's accounts, not for not taking action. I remember reading a story that said that people have been cancelled based on sending a couple of emails to an ex-girlfriend, etc.
I think if anyone says boo about an AOL user, the account will be cancelled.
Let's see.
Itw just makes good business sense for AOL to be that way. An ISP that is willing to stand up for users who get themselves into trouble on the net is going to incur some serious costs looking into the allegations, sorting out who is right or wrong, etc. Believe me, it's my nearly-fulltime job on Wikipedia. :-)
And you have our gratitude for that :)
It's a lot easier to just kick people off -- they aren't the customers you want. The customers you want just pay their money and don't cause any trouble. That's profitable. A person who causes trouble is just going to cost you money in dealing ith complaints.
I agree completely.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Im kinda with Chris on this -- There is absolutely no justification for anyone to use AOL. -S-
--- daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I am an AOL user. I am also a sysop and I have been contributing to Wikipedia for well over a year. I have found myself blocked on several occasions because of blocks against Michael. There is absolutely no justification for blocking thousands of potential users like me just because we happen to use AOL. There must be some other solution.
Danny
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigum wrote:
Im kinda with Chris on this -- There is absolutely no justification for anyone to use AOL.
Apart from the fact that it has an easier-to-use interface than most services and more widespread access to dial-up numbers (very useful when travelling)? I'd personally be happy if AOL doubled its market share -- AOL users are also generally immune to email worms (due to the nature of AOL's email client), so taking some market share from all the infectees using other ISPs could only help things.
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
Apart from the fact that it has an easier-to-use interface than most services and more widespread access to dial-up numbers (very useful when travelling)?
Agreed.
I'd personally be happy if AOL doubled its market share -- AOL users are also generally immune to email worms (due to the nature of AOL's email client), so taking some market share from all the infectees using other ISPs could only help things.
That's a different problem altogether.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com