Oi, veh.
I already apologized for the "F.A." episode -- which was half a dozen Wikipedia edits to call attention to this very issue. I won't be doing it again; that's implicit in the apology.
Also, I never post on weekends: I'm too busy.
Maybe we need to go with the "grey list" & "e-mail authentication" ideas that Neil Harris proposed.
Ed Poor
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 09:40, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Maybe we need to go with the "grey list" & "e-mail authentication" ideas that Neil Harris proposed.
Those are profoundly bad ideas for Wikipedia. They represent a complete shift in the basic policy of openness, trust, and ease of use that makes this project successful.
The Cunctator wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 09:40, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Maybe we need to go with the "grey list" & "e-mail authentication" ideas that Neil Harris proposed.
Those are profoundly bad ideas for Wikipedia. They represent a complete shift in the basic policy of openness, trust, and ease of use that makes this project successful.
I agree that openness, trust, and ease of use are essential goals.
The greylist idea is intended to make the Wikipedia accessible to users who share a proxy with a vandal, not to restrict the 99.99% of ordinary users, logged-in or otherwise.
The alternative is to blacklist IPs shared with vandals, which also blocks all other users on those IP ranges from editing. Unless you have another alternative?
Neil
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org