Nyenyec N wrote:
I've been following this argument with great interest for a long time.
I have to admit that I never really understood why anonymous editing was such an important thing for so many people. Especially, since it doesn't give you more privacy than a username does.
A typical internet user creates user accounts on dozens of sites. You can't even read email without a user account. You can't even access the internet without some sort of user account at your ISP.
I admit but sometimes it's convenient not having to log in, but both the server and modern browsers help you remember your username / password, so mostly it takes less than 10 seconds to log in.
And it seems that no one talks about this, but its soo *frustrating* to communicate with anonymous users? Has the anonymous editor been warned already not to upload copyrighted material? Not to write in ALL CAPS? Pointed to various policies or guidelines? Was this her first edit? You can't tell, because they don't have a user name.
Can anyone tell if Wikipedia wouldn't have reached its current size if you required the creation of a user account, just like 99.9% of the websites does?
Did anonymous editing make such a great difference? Can someone prove it?
-- nyenyec
Many people don't want to get fully involved at first. I was one of them, and many Wikipedians I've talked to also started out this way. If we had to pass through the registration barrier, all of us would never have joined. As it occurred, we joined after making at least a few dozen edits and realising how addictive Wikipedia was. This is of course purely anecdotal, but based on it, I have no doubt at all when I say Wikipedia would not be anywhere near its present size if you could not contribute without registering from the start.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])