In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to hear a convincing reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw plenty of cases when I wished they couldn't. Zero.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
zero 0000 wrote:
In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to hear a convincing reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw plenty of cases when I wished they couldn't. Zero.
You must be looking at the wrong articles then. There's been a bunch of new material for which I've been grateful to anons for doing the scutwork of creating and filling in, and lots of grammar/spelling corrections from them too. Some of these are from IPs that become familiar, so I assume they have reasons for anonymity.
I'm not averse to making anons be third-class though, logins with no real-world identification second-class, and real-world people as the first class. Anonymity cannot build the web of trust that we'll need for long-term stability and reliability, so we want to tolerate it but not encourage. (For instance, a quality rating system might elevate an article to where anons could no longer modify it.)
Stan
Please check out the blast injuries article. sometimes logging to the system is just too much hassle.
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
zero 0000 wrote:
In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to
hear a convincing
reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw
plenty of cases when
I wished they couldn't. Zero.
You must be looking at the wrong articles then. There's been a bunch of new material for which I've been grateful to anons for doing the scutwork of creating and filling in, and lots of grammar/spelling corrections from them too. Some of these are from IPs that become familiar, so I assume they have reasons for anonymity.
I'm not averse to making anons be third-class though, logins with no real-world identification second-class, and real-world people as the first class. Anonymity cannot build the web of trust that we'll need for long-term stability and reliability, so we want to tolerate it but not encourage. (For instance, a quality rating system might elevate an article to where anons could no longer modify it.)
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 21:40:38 -0700 (PDT), zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to hear a convincing reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw plenty of cases when I wished they couldn't. Zero.
Anonymous editors may become interested in Wikipedia and become non-anonymous. This occurs with greater frequency it would if the anonymous user was not able to experiment prior to registration. There's one- okay?
If you need another reason, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_riflehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle, which was just taken from a redirect to a full-fledged article by an anon. -Slowking Man ----- Original Message ----- From: Fennec Foxenmailto:fennec@gmail.com To: English Wikipediamailto:wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:30 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] anons editing
On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 21:40:38 -0700 (PDT), zero 0000 <nought_0000@yahoo.commailto:nought_0000@yahoo.com> wrote:
In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to hear a convincing reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw plenty of cases when I wished they couldn't. Zero.
Anonymous editors may become interested in Wikipedia and become non-anonymous. This occurs with greater frequency it would if the anonymous user was not able to experiment prior to registration. There's one- okay? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.orgmailto:WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-lhttp://mail.wikipediaorg/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fennec Foxen wrote:
nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to hear a convincing reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw plenty of cases when I wished they couldn't. Zero.
Anonymous editors may become interested in Wikipedia and become non-anonymous. This occurs with greater frequency it would if the anonymous user was not able to experiment prior to registration. There's one- okay?
That's an important point. I tried things for a couple weeks before I was addicted enough to join.
Agressively insisting that a person be registered on his first day would be like a drug dealer warning a first time client about addiction. :-) That's not good for business.
Ec
Now now, Wikipedia isn't addicti...er, sorry, just had to refresh Recent Changes. -Slowking Man ----- Original Message ----- From: Ray Saintongemailto:saintonge@telus.net To: English Wikipediamailto:wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] anons editing
That's an important point. I tried things for a couple weeks before I was addicted enough to join.
Agressively insisting that a person be registered on his first day would be like a drug dealer warning a first time client about addiction. :-) That's not good for business.
Ec
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.orgmailto:WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-lhttp://mail.wikipediaorg/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Liking Wikipedia to a drug addiction, how appripirate (no joke)
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:04:23 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Fennec Foxen wrote:
nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to hear a convincing reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw plenty of cases when I wished they couldn't. Zero.
Anonymous editors may become interested in Wikipedia and become non-anonymous. This occurs with greater frequency it would if the anonymous user was not able to experiment prior to registration. There's one- okay?
That's an important point. I tried things for a couple weeks before I was addicted enough to join.
Agressively insisting that a person be registered on his first day would be like a drug dealer warning a first time client about addiction. :-) That's not good for business.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:04:23 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anonymous editors may become interested in Wikipedia and become non-anonymous. This occurs with greater frequency it would if the anonymous user was not able to experiment prior to registration. There's one- okay?
That's an important point. I tried things for a couple weeks before I was addicted enough to join.
Me too
On 08/09/04 04:40, zero 0000 wrote:
In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to hear a convincing reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw plenty of cases when I wished they couldn't. Zero.
Most good contributors start as anons. I'd say that's a pretty good point in their favour. People are reluctant to get yet another goddamn login.
- d.
zero 0000 wrote:
In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to hear a convincing reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw plenty of cases when I wished they couldn't. Zero.
1. By keeping the barriers to entry low, we make it easy for new people to get involved. It's fairly common for people to make a few edits as anons before they decide that this is a good project, at which point they get a login and start to build a reputation.
2. By allowing anons to edit, we actually encourage a certain type of "drive by" vandal to self-sort themselves into an easily identified category. We allow sysops to ban ip numbers who do bad things on a much lower standard than the standard for logged in users. If we forced all the random idiots to login before adding "FAG FAG FAG" to the articles, we might have to weaken the "civil rights protections" that we give to logged-in users.
--Jimbo