User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2020/Dec

MOS question for TPWs
I recently edited R. Austin Freeman to capitalize some book titles in the bibliography. My edit was reverted by Johncosgrave, who states, "The Wikipedia MoS states that titles of works should be in title case (unlike the titles of Wikipedia articles which should be in sentence case" and cites Manual of Style/Capital letters. That is not how I read that section, but I'm not an MOS expert, so I'd appreciate if someone else could weigh in on this. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like the editor here ended up realizing the mistake and undoing their own edit. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that resolved easily enough. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

About The T.J. Hooper
Hi NYB. Could you possibly have a little look at this article? While not a SCOTUS decision, it appears be a leading case in American Admiralty/Torts case law. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've declined the speedy, as this was, as you suggest, an important decision in admiralty law and in the field now called law and economics, but the most important judge of the leading admiralty court. I'll try to put some work in on the article in the next few days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "The field now called law and economics"? Tsk, tsk colleague: every time I start a law-related article, I look at the Posner J redirect to see how it might be related to just that. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I still plan to work on this article, but it will be a few days until I can put my hands on a key source. If I haven't gotten to this in two weeks or so, anyone can feel free to remind me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

IP vandalism/registration
IPs were mostly helpful in the early years, when Wikipedia needed all the help it could get to fill in totally missing subjects. This is probably heretical, but now that we have covered most obvious topics, isn't it time to require registration? In my experience, IPs now take up so much of our time reverting vandalism, COI material, edit warriors and rookie errors, that they are a net minus, by far. Is there somewhere where this is being discussed? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This issue has been discussed many times, to the point that your idea is included here on the "List of Perennial Proposals." I think the best argument for continuing to allow IPs to edit is that it gives new editors an opportunity to test the site's "anyone can edit" claim for themselves, and make the introductory edits that lead some people to register and become long-term contributors, which they might not take the time to do if they had to register first. For what it's worth, that is how I started editing. I made my first edit when I saw an article that contained a statement I knew to be incorrect and I fixed it; I have no way of knowing whether I would have bothered to make the edit if I had to register an account first. On the other hand, a few weeks later I wanted to write an article, and I discovered that only registered editors can do that, so at that point I signed up. The plural of "anecdote," as they say, is not "data," but I suspect that many others have had similar experiences. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I note that all the data/statistics cited in the link you gave is from 2007 or 2008 at the latest. I bet those numbers have shifted a lot, and that the vast majority of IP edits are now vandalism or sockpuppetry, and a very small number of IP edits are really helpful. As I said, when you and I started editing, it was all hands on deck to try to get basic subjects covered, and to introduce people to that new online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, but now, 15 years later, we are trying to refine basic articles and to replace unreferenced info with referenced info. Anyhow, I think it's time for re-assessment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My start was precisely the same as Arid Desiccant's NYB's, except I can say with certainty that there's zero chance I would have started editing had I been required to register from the first; under your proposal I wouldn't be editing today. (Whether or not that would be a bad thing I'll leave to others.) Your analysis is like criticizing a gold miner because only a very small part of the ore you dig out is actually gold. But it's the only way anyone knows of. EEng 00:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye, but you also began editing over a dozen years ago. I just wonder if the general public is now familiar enough with Wikipedia and other crowd-sourced projects that registration would still turn off a significant number of potential real editors? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the passage of time has to do with it. Anytime I'm asked to create an account, if at all possible I find another way to do whatever it is, or if it's not important I just give it up. I dread anything that adds another entry to my swollen password book. EEng 00:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The claim that the vast majority of IP edits are now vandalism or sockpuppetry is both extremely easy to check and demonstrably not true. I agree with everyone else that forced registration would be to condemn Wikipedia to a slow death. Most editors begin by correcting a minor error or updating something that's out of date, and no sane person is going to go through our fiddly and time-consuming registration process just because they see a "doe snot"; forced-registration would have the same long-term impact on the editor base that increased RFA standards had on the admin base, effectively freezing recruitment and letting the overall number gradually age, die or retire, and generally collectively become more and more detached from reality. &#8209; Iridescent 07:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just add, SS, that I began editing not a dozen years ago, but at least thirteen years ago, because of course you're not seeing the full year during which I edited now and then, here and there, as an IP. With time I came to see the advantages of registering (watchlist for articles I'd taken an interest in, better communication with other editors, sense of membership in a community) and one day when I had nothing to do I just bit the bullet and did it. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find (if there was a way to get such data) that the richest vein of editors we don't want are registered accounts not preceded by a period of IP editing -- sockpuppets, meatpuppets, canvassed idealogues and righters of great wrongs, etc. EEng 17:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this has been discussed more recently ... does anyone reading here have a link? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There used to be this, but it is defunct.  I don't see any recent discussions, so I hope one of your readers knows of one.  All the best. Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe the most recent proposal was Village pump (policy)/Archive 155 which was closed on 29 November 2019 as no consensus. The muck will hit the fan when meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation is implemented by our glorious leaders in the WMF (with mention of legal issues as the driver on talk). That was discussed at WP:AN October 2020. People with nothing to do worry about the invasion of privacy involved when an IP's edit is displayed as an IP. Therefore, each IP will be assigned a "mask", namely an anonymous name such as Anon1234 (details to be decided, probably longer and more obnoxious). They really really sincerely promise to provide anti-vandalism tools (to be decided). Apparently Portugese Wikipedia has already implemented an edit filter that prevents IPs from editing; I don't know how that's going but it was silently tolerated by the WMF at one time as an acknowledgment that ptwiki don't have enough editors to deal with the nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

There are registered editors who sometimes edit as an IP. If I'm logged out and see a little error, I might just fix it without logging in. Maybe I'm sitting at my wife's computer reading an article. I see a lot of constructive, gnome-like edits by IPs. Jehochman Talk 05:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get off topic but I think it's nice that there are women nowadays willing to marry a Yale man. EEng 05:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * She also went to Yale. Jehochman Talk 05:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But can't that lead to birth defects? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 07:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose Yale refugees may use this page as their new haven. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are developing a certain unexpected vein of pawky humour, NYB. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 12:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Beware of that one. He's a tiger. Jehochman Talk 01:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

December 16: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)