I am not advocating the prevention of anonymous edits. I am saying that such a policy has no relevant connection to the claim that "anyone can edit".
Anonymous edits enable impulse contributions to WP. I share the consensus view that this is desirable. It is not a matter of openness; merely a matter of immediacy.
Theo
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:42:57 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
Theo Clarke (wiki@tignosis.com) [050404 20:35]:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 01:06:44 +0100, David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
That would be undermining the very point that promotes Wikipedia, though. "Anyone can edit" is false if anons can't edit. Theres a lot of people who would just walk out if that became true.
Analysed at that level, the promotional statement is already untrue. Blocked users and users of blocked IP addresses cannot edit. At a more extreme level, those with no access to the Internet cannot edit. In my opinion, preventing anonymous edits makes the project no less open as long as registration is unrestricted.
This one comes up again and again, and the consensus has always been "nope, anon edits will continue thanks."
- d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l