I would like to propose two related policy changes:
1. That a confirmed e-mail address be required for creation of new accounts 2. That these e-mail addresses be visible to administrators.
Wikipedia extends several important priviledges to logged in users: - uploading images - moving pages - hiding IP address - stronger policy protections before being blocked
Each of these has been misused: - Recently, there has been a spate of uploads of the goatse image. - There have been several instances of page-move vandalism. - We have growing problems with socks, which have been used for circumventing AC bans, for vandalism, for POV-driven advocacy, and for "good hand/band hand" editing where a throwaway account is used to evade accountabilitiy for antisocial edits - There are a growing number of cases where vandals create accounts, make a few good edits, and then proceed with relative impunity since they cannot then be blocked without an AC decision.
Requiring a confirmed e-mail address would have little effect on legitimate contributors and would help considerably in dealing with problem users:
a. It would complicate the construction of vandalbots that register a username and then conduct high-speed vandalism b. It would provide a better basis for following up on abusive users in egregious cases where an ISP must be contacted c. It would allow likely socks to be more rapidly identified
While there are services that provide anonymous email accounts (hotmail, yahoo, and so on), these take time to create, providing a deterrent effect. Also, a pattern of creating userids with anonymous email addresses is easy to spot.
Finally, I believe that this would help us be more welcoming to new users, since it would reduce the present atmosphere of suspicion surrounding any account that has relatively few edits.
UninvitedCompany
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
Requiring a confirmed e-mail address would have little effect on legitimate contributors and would help considerably in dealing with problem users:
It's remarkable how every time someone proposes to violate privacy, they declare that it will have "little effect" on legitimate people.
a. It would complicate the construction of vandalbots that register a username and then conduct high-speed vandalism
Congratulations, you've slowed down the creation of vandal bots by a one-time five minutes, and the creation of each vandal bot account by a few seconds.
Oh, and you've also slowed down the registration process for real people by a few minutes, and scared off people that don't want to be handing out their email address.
b. It would provide a better basis for following up on abusive users in egregious cases where an ISP must be contacted
No vandal is going to give their ISP-provided email address, and I fail to understand how it would provide any better basis than their IP address even if they did.
c. It would allow likely socks to be more rapidly identified
How? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence creating sockpuppets isn't going to provide the same or even similar email addresses.
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
- That a confirmed e-mail address be required for creation of new
accounts
-10. It would mean the death of Wikipedia. Wikipedia will become a second Dmoz, where nobody registers because it takes hours and hours to register. It's easier to become a member of the secret service than registering with Dmoz. That's not what we want.
Second, it would solve nothing.
Goodbye.
uninvited@nerstrand.net a écrit:
I would like to propose two related policy changes:
- That a confirmed e-mail address be required for creation of new
accounts 2. That these e-mail addresses be visible to administrators.
Though I understand Steve concerns, I do not support either of those propositions.
Neither the forecoming proposal that provider such as yahoo are forbidden.
We want to keep contributing simple and open.
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
uninvited@nerstrand.net a �crit:
I would like to propose two related policy changes:
- That a confirmed e-mail address be required for creation of
new
accounts 2. That these e-mail addresses be visible to administrators.
Though I understand Steve concerns, I do not support either of those propositions.
Neither the forecoming proposal that provider such as yahoo are forbidden.
I'd have to agree, since I exclusively use Yahoo/gmail accounts. I have my own domain name and email there, and I've had pacbell, earthlink, sbc, roadrunner, and more in the future I am sure.
I just prefer the ease of the yahoo and gmail accounts.
We want to keep contributing simple and open.
What about privacy? Do we know for sure that some of the wikipedia administrators do not actually work for the FBI, the MSS, or the FSB?
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Jens Ropers wrote:
On 9 Nov 2004, at 01:48, Christopher Mahan wrote:
do not actually work for the FBI, the MSS, or the FSB
MSS? What's that, Mossad, perhaps? ???
Ministry of State Security -- PRC intelligence. If you're a Chinese dissident, the last thing you want is to give them information about yourself.
On 9 Nov 2004, at 02:33, Nicholas Knight wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
On 9 Nov 2004, at 01:48, Christopher Mahan wrote:
do not actually work for the FBI, the MSS, or the FSB
MSS? What's that, Mossad, perhaps? ???
Ministry of State Security -- PRC intelligence. If you're a Chinese dissident, the last thing you want is to give them information about yourself.
Mkay. In an ideal world I would sit down and write the apparently missing WP article now. ;-)
Yes, we're all government spies. Also, if you're worried about privacy, perhaps it wouldn't be wise for you to put your cell phone number in your email signature.
--Slowking Man
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:48:01 -0800 (PST), Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
What about privacy?
Do we know for sure that some of the wikipedia administrators do not actually work for the FBI, the MSS, or the FSB?
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
Christopher Larberg wrote:
Yes, we're all government spies. Also, if you're worried about privacy, perhaps it wouldn't be wise for you to put your cell phone number in your email signature.
Have we really fallen so far that we cannot conceive of a person being concerned for the welfare of someone other than themselves?
I don't try to hide my identity. I post under my real name and real email address (under a domain that I own which is hosted on servers I control, including one that sits a mere three feet from me right now). But I'm not living in the PRC, and I don't take my life in my hands simply by telling the truth. Some people do. Those are the people we need to protect, and requiring email confirmation just makes it harder and more risky for them.
Ah, then I apologize. You sort of lumped the PRC in with other intelligence agencies, and I misinterpreted your comment as being afraid of some sort of "sysop conspiracy." I agree with your sentiments.
--Slowking Man
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:47:34 -0800, Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com wrote:
Christopher Larberg wrote:
Yes, we're all government spies. Also, if you're worried about privacy, perhaps it wouldn't be wise for you to put your cell phone number in your email signature.
Have we really fallen so far that we cannot conceive of a person being concerned for the welfare of someone other than themselves?
I don't try to hide my identity. I post under my real name and real email address (under a domain that I own which is hosted on servers I control, including one that sits a mere three feet from me right now). But I'm not living in the PRC, and I don't take my life in my hands simply by telling the truth. Some people do. Those are the people we need to protect, and requiring email confirmation just makes it harder and more risky for them.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l