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.
And how is this wrong?
What's wrong with not letting the 25 million + AOL users not edit anonymously? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was that anyone could edit - this has already been discussed extensively on the Village Pump, and this is taking us one step closer to the precipice of not letting anonymous users edit. We don't want to stop anonymous editing for a significant portion of users.
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),
This is not the case -- editors far outnumber vandals. This would simply force editors who have 1) previously been unlogged in and 2) happen to be on a IP used by vandals, to register and log in. Whats wrong with that?
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.
opinion, is against the spirit of the Wiki - we're here to allow *anyone* to edit, not just those who want to create accounts.
Bah. This affects only vandal IPs, which are fewer than larger. Logging in doesnt (necessarily) compromise anonymity -- not unless there is some unprincipled turning over of user logs to third parties. In fact, logging in offers more anonymity, wheras an IP address is in fact an identifier. Using dynamic IPs for anonymity is just a defacto method to increase anonymity -- it does not in fact *provide such.
I've never said anything about anonymity, and that's the issue here. The issue is whether to block IP editing for a significant portion of the global internet users. Also, what do you mean that this only affects vandal IPs? A large number of our contributors here - regardless of registered or not - use AOL, and this would severely curtail (in fact, eliminate) editting without logging in/registered - which is, as I repeat, against the spirit of Wikipedia IMO. If it was our intent to stop all vandalism, I'm sure that all anonymous editing would have been stopped by now; however, this has been soundly rejected multiple times.
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.
Bah. Your rant simply repeats a lot of the same claims and fears without basing them in substance. If youre just worried that range blocks would become used too routinely, then thats a concern to address later --when such actually becomes a problem.
I'm not worried about the range blocks/ blocks of AOL IP. I think other people are, which is one of the pros of this blocking proposal - logged in users could still edit on AOL even though the IP is blocked. All I'm saying is that there are way too many cons in this proposal, IMO, compared to only a small benefit (allowing current contributors who use AOL to edit while AOL IPs are blocked). I"m offering an alternate solution - use blocks on shared IPs such as AOL IPs with more caution, and we should be fine.
In my opinion, I think my "rant" already has a lot of substance - I didn't fill up a whole darn email for nothing. :-) And that's exactly my point - that this blocking proposal would be detrimental to Wikipedia. I urge you all to consider the long-term effects of this. Thanks.
Flcelloguy
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
SV
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 135
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
That does not mean whole schools districts, isp, public library computer ip, etc will get blocked. Only the IP in question will be block for a short amount of time.
On 10/18/05, Fl Celloguy flcelloguy@hotmail.com wrote:
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.
And how is this wrong?
What's wrong with not letting the 25 million + AOL users not edit anonymously? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was that anyone could edit - this has already been discussed extensively on the Village Pump, and this is taking us one step closer to the precipice of not letting anonymous users edit. We don't want to stop anonymous editing for a significant portion of users.
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),
This is not the case -- editors far outnumber vandals. This would simply force editors who have 1) previously been unlogged in and 2) happen to be on a IP used by vandals, to register and log in. Whats wrong with that?
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.
opinion, is against the spirit of the Wiki - we're here to allow *anyone* to edit, not just those who want to create accounts.
Bah. This affects only vandal IPs, which are fewer than larger. Logging in doesnt (necessarily) compromise anonymity -- not unless there is some unprincipled turning over of user logs to third parties. In fact, logging in offers more anonymity, wheras an IP address is in fact an identifier. Using dynamic IPs for anonymity is just a defacto method to increase anonymity -- it does not in fact *provide such.
I've never said anything about anonymity, and that's the issue here. The issue is whether to block IP editing for a significant portion of the global internet users. Also, what do you mean that this only affects vandal IPs? A large number of our contributors here - regardless of registered or not - use AOL, and this would severely curtail (in fact, eliminate) editting without logging in/registered - which is, as I repeat, against the spirit of Wikipedia IMO. If it was our intent to stop all vandalism, I'm sure that all anonymous editing would have been stopped by now; however, this has been soundly rejected multiple times.
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.
Bah. Your rant simply repeats a lot of the same claims and fears without basing them in substance. If youre just worried that range blocks would become used too routinely, then thats a concern to address later --when such actually becomes a problem.
I'm not worried about the range blocks/ blocks of AOL IP. I think other people are, which is one of the pros of this blocking proposal - logged in users could still edit on AOL even though the IP is blocked. All I'm saying is that there are way too many cons in this proposal, IMO, compared to only a small benefit (allowing current contributors who use AOL to edit while AOL IPs are blocked). I"m offering an alternate solution - use blocks on shared IPs such as AOL IPs with more caution, and we should be fine.
In my opinion, I think my "rant" already has a lot of substance - I didn't fill up a whole darn email for nothing. :-) And that's exactly my point - that this blocking proposal would be detrimental to Wikipedia. I urge you all to consider the long-term effects of this. Thanks.
Flcelloguy
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
SV
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 135
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.
On 10/19/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
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.
I don't think that will be required since I will pull any blocks against wide ranges that don't exist without a very good reason.
-- geni