[Foundation-l] and what if...

[Anthony]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> >> > "They" didn't block editing.  "You" did.
> >>
> >> Technically, yes, but they made it impossible for us to do anything
> else.
> >>
> >
> > I think at this point you have to describe what you mean by "block
> editing",
> > then.
>
> I think we all know what "block editing" means. It's when you go to
> Special:BlockIP and make it impossible for someone to edit.


There are many different options when going to Special:BlockIP.  Personally
I wouldn't consider all of them to consist of "blocked editing" - one I'd
refer to as "restrict editing to logged in users".

Well, I guess technically it's pseudonymity. The important thing is
> that you can't (easily) link the IP address to a person in real life.


And what good does that provide?  Seriously, how is that useful?  Why should
Wikipedia allow anonymous contributions in the first place?  Don't say it
has something to do with the government, because the government can easily
link IP addresses to people in real life anyway, barring the use of a system
like Tor, which Wikipedia doesn't support anyway.

And if it really is a goal to allow this, there are blind token systems that
can do it right.

(Well, actually, the important thing is that you don't need to go
> through the (minimal) hassle of registering an account - I doubt the
> proportion of anons that consciously prefer to go by an IP address is
> very high - they are less private than accounts.)
>

I'd say it's long past the point where the (minimal) saved hassle is worth
the trouble.

Anthony