[WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

[Han Dao]

That does not mean whole schools districts, isp, public library computer ip,
etc will get blocked. Only the IP in question will be block for a short
amount of time.

On 10/18/05, Fl Celloguy <flcelloguy at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > The proposal would
> > > indubitably mean the blocking
> > > (using this logged-in only registration) of most AOL
> > > IPs, Netscape IPs,
> > > school districts, public-use computers, and major
> > > corporations.
> >
> >And how is this wrong?
>
> What's wrong with not letting the 25 million + AOL users not edit
> anonymously? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was that anyone could
> edit - this has already been discussed extensively on the Village Pump,
> and
> this is taking us one step closer to the precipice of not letting
> anonymous
> users edit. We don't want to stop anonymous editing for a significant
> portion of users.
>
> >
> >By only
> > > allowing logged-in users on these IPs (since it is
> > > inevitable that all of
> > > them would either be blocked indefinitely or blocked
> > > consistently),
> >
> >This is not the case -- editors far outnumber vandals.
> >This would simply force editors who have 1) previously
> >been unlogged in and 2) happen to be on a IP used by
> >vandals, to register and log in. Whats wrong with
> >that?
>
> What's wrong with that? I repeat, Wikipedia should let *anyone* edit. Just
> because someone uses AOL doesn't mean s/he should have to register and
> create an account to edit. We're "forcing" users, to quote from you, to
> register when the whole point of Wikipedia is that you don't need to
> register to edit.
>
> >
> >
> > > opinion, is against the spirit of the Wiki - we're
> > > here to allow *anyone* to
> > > edit, not just those who want to create accounts.
> >
> >Bah. This affects only vandal IPs, which are fewer
> >than larger. Logging in doesnt (necessarily)
> >compromise anonymity -- not unless there is some
> >unprincipled turning over of user logs to third
> >parties. In fact, logging in offers more anonymity,
> >wheras an IP address is in fact an identifier. Using
> >dynamic IPs for anonymity is just a defacto method to
> >increase anonymity -- it does not in fact *provide
> >such.
>
> I've never said anything about anonymity, and that's the issue here. The
> issue is whether to block IP editing for a significant portion of the
> global
> internet users. Also, what do you mean that this only affects vandal IPs?
> A
> large number of our contributors here - regardless of registered or not -
> use AOL, and this would severely curtail (in fact, eliminate) editting
> without logging in/registered - which is, as I repeat, against the spirit
> of
> Wikipedia IMO. If it was our intent to stop all vandalism, I'm sure that
> all
> anonymous editing would have been stopped by now; however, this has been
> soundly rejected multiple times.
>
> >
> >This blocking
> > > policy proposal would take
> > > us one step closer to not allowing any anonymous
> > > editing - AOL, school
> > > districts, and public-use computers comprise a large
> > > amount of our editing,
> > > and many are valuable editors and contributors that
> > > we may lose if this
> > > policy is implemented.
> >
> >Bah. Your rant simply repeats a lot of the same claims
> >and fears without basing them in substance. If youre
> >just worried that range blocks would become used too
> >routinely, then thats a concern to address later
> >--when such actually becomes a problem.
>
> I'm not worried about the range blocks/ blocks of AOL IP. I think other
> people are, which is one of the pros of this blocking proposal - logged in
> users could still edit on AOL even though the IP is blocked. All I'm
> saying
> is that there are way too many cons in this proposal, IMO, compared to
> only
> a small benefit (allowing current contributors who use AOL to edit while
> AOL
> IPs are blocked). I"m offering an alternate solution - use blocks on
> shared
> IPs such as AOL IPs with more caution, and we should be fine.
>
> In my opinion, I think my "rant" already has a lot of substance - I didn't
> fill up a whole darn email for nothing. :-) And that's exactly my point -
> that this blocking proposal would be detrimental to Wikipedia. I urge you
> all to consider the long-term effects of this. Thanks.
>
> Flcelloguy
> >From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
>
> >
> >SV
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 135
> >*****************************************
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>