User:Bluemoose/Thoughts

The hidden cost of bad editing
There seems to be an attitude common among many that one click of the rollback button and vandalism is gone and forgotten about. This is very wrong;
 * Certainly not all vandalism is actually reverted.
 * Reverting vandalism wastes a lot of the time of our best editors.
 * Heavily vandalised articles become impossible to edit positively, or if they are improved, it is gradually eroded by bad faith editing/reverting (see the Bill Gates article and page history).
 * Vandalism reduces our credibility substantially, putting off good editors.
 * Bad edits are often not reverted properly, and subsequently edited into the article.

Fallacies in the "Anonymous users are good" argument

 * Most work from anonymous users is good.
 * Most is not good enough. You can't have an encyclopedia that claims "most" of it is good, that would be totally worthless. When you consider the amount of damage single vandal edit can produce, "most" is certainly not good enough.


 * But we don't want to put off new users.
 * At the cost of putting off good users? If it means good users spend a disproportionate amount of their time fixing anonymous mistakes then that is time they could have been doing other productive work, and they aren't likely to stick around long if they are just wasting their time. Wikipedia is only successful because of its relatively small base of dedicated users. Also, Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites on the planet, it no longer needs to worry about attracting new users, as it happens naturally, now we need to worry about our credibility.


 * Registered users aren't all good either.
 * Registered users are much much better on average, they are easier to communicate with, they are easier to ban, and it would also be easy to filter out potential bad users by simply requiring an e-mail address.


 * But it so un-wiki like to stop anonymous editing
 * Is this a social experiment or not? No, I didn't think so, it is a project to make a damn good encyclopedia, and "Wiki" is a means to this end. I don't see how pressing a few buttons to log in is un-wiki.


 * Some users want to remain anonymous
 * I've got news for you buddy, my real name isn't Bluemoose, in the literal sense of the word we are all as "anonymous" as we want to be. In fact, as anonymous (in the Wikipedia meaning) users leave a trail of their IP address, it is more anonymous (literal) to actually log in!


 * You can't stop determined vandals
 * Correct. But most vandals are not determined, and the few that are are relatively easy to deal with. Non-determined vandals however are very easy to deter.

What can be done?
Alternatives;


 * 1) Force anonymous and very new users to enter an edit summary and/or view the preview before saving.
 * 2) People who use IP addesses shared by large numbers of people (e.g. AOL) should have to log in.
 * 3) Same rules as present, but everyone has to log in.
 * 4) Everyone has to log in, and provide a verified email address, each email address can only be used to make one account.
 * 5) Add the rel="nofollow" attribute, to help fight spam.

See also 1 2

It is already happening...

 * Anonymous users are already distrusted; they are heavily monitored on recent changes, not allowed to upload files, and can't move pages.
 * (If I remember correctly) There is a plan to allow a user to register once and be able to log into all Wikimedia projects, meaning users who would edit other projects anonymously to avoid creating another user account no longer have to be anonymous.
 * The criteria for speedy deletion are progressively becoming broader, which is essentially another way to deal with some of the problems anonymous users bring.
 * Anonymous users can no longer create new pages.
 * Bug 550: "Blocks on anonymous users only"