User:SallyScot/Anonymous edit analysis

Wikepedia:Citing sources
Looking at recent edits (see table below), it seems to me that, for the sake of the occasional minor grammatical change and the odd reversions of others vandalism (which would get picked up by login account users anyway), anonymous edits are generally more trouble than they're worth. I've created a table showing anonymous edits from the beginning of October 2007.

In arguments given generally supporting anonymous edits it is claimed for the average Wikipedia article that somewhere around 75% - 80% of anonymous edits are made in good faith and intended to improve the encyclopedia (see perennial discussion topic). This is clearly not the case for Citing Sources project page.

Summarising the edits there are over 100* incidents of anonymous vandalism, and that's with article being semi-protected for six weeks during the period from the beginning of October 2007 to 17th December 2007

I'd have to ask if a project page such as this is a place where we really get any benefit from anonymous edits. Personally, from what I've seen so far, I'd be in favour of permanent semi-protection here.

<Back to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Analysis of anonymous edits 2007-10-01 to 2007-12-17

* The exact number of incidents of vandalism depends how you want to count multiple incidents occurring within a few minutes from the same IP, e.g. 66.242.231.181's edits from 17:20, 2 October 2007.

<Back to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Please add your comments back in the original talk page section not here. Thanks.