[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue

[Michael R. Irwin]

Giskart wrote:
> 
> Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> 
> >[cut]
> >
> >My understanding of how ip banning and common use of reassignment
> >of IP numbers leads me to this concern:
> >
> >If too many casual or hit and run type vandals are banned that we
> >are likely banning the next users, not the vandal.  This could be
> >counterproductive if it occurs in conjunction with recruiting efforts
> >or methods under discussion in other threads.
> >
> >For high school or college users to begin relying on the Wikipedia
> >as a resource timely access is required due to homework deadlines,
> >typically on the order of days or hours, not weeks.   Encountering
> >frequent blocks due to local vandals on the same pool of IP addresses
> >is likely to encourage the view that Wikipedia is unreliable, not
> >that inappropriate local use is causing the problem.  If the user
> >becomes aware that he/she is being punished for another's misdeeds
> >this could form an even worse impression.
> >
> >
> [cut]
> 
> I have not (yet) been banned so i do not realy know but the language
> configurationfile says "
> 
> "blockiptext" => "Use the form below to block write access from a
> specific IP address. This should be done only only to prevent
> valndalism, and in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Policy|Wikipedia
> policy]]. Fill in a specific reason below (for example, citing
> particular pages that were vandalized)."
> 
> So your not realy blocking a user from accesing Wikipedia. He can still
> read all the articels. He can only not change them. For making has
> homework he does not need to change content.  -- giskart

I believe you are correct.  Others have corrected this 
type of poor wording/thinking for me before.  This obviously 
relieves the primary focus of my concern above.

A related smaller concern.   I find that much of my contribution 
is in the form of making small updates when researching or doing
some background reading in support of personal projects.

I think getting the students used to contributing tidbits,
questions (on associated talk pages) or routine corrections in 
the course of their routine work as appropriate will be quite
useful.   This may ultimately be the major form of contribution
by most people, as our material gets more detailed and broad.
Occasional write block interference or aliasing would disrupt
this form of contribution.  If persisent from certain sites
it be highly disruptive in attracting contributors from that
site.

To me this appears to be a smaller short term impact than the 
scenario I devised above around faulty assumptions.  Longer term
is harder to estimate.   If we wish to encourage a participatory
trend this may be a negative.   If the trend to begin contributing
as (it is feasible and convenient) turns out to be quite strong 
among casual users, then I think it is probably negligable.

If vandals find denial of Wikipedia write access to
local populations sharing a common IP address pool  
amusing, it may increase our attractiveness as a target.

Thanks for correcting my error.

Regards,
Mike Irwin