David Gerard wrote:
I'm really
not convinced that signing articles is an in-demand idea, let alone a good one.
Don't worry, if anybody tries to push it you can always threaten to lift
the ban on Gzornenplatz (uh, I mean Wik), who spent some time following
[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] around removing all of his
signatures that he put in non-displaying comments.
I agree that there's not much call for signing articles on a
collaborative project when a detailed history function is available.
Wikipedia is not a vanity press. The only thing that could justify it is
when it's a way of taking responsibility for the content (as opposed to
credit). For example, that's why I've adopted a practice of having
signed articles on The Wikipedia Signpost, since it's effectively
original reporting. But for encyclopedia articles, having an author take
responsibility would be a pathetic stand-in for what we really need,
which is more and better references so that information can properly be
traced to its source. Plus we have a well-warranted policy against
allowing original research in the encyclopedia.
--Michael Snow