Just come across an admin who thinks all users should register. How many such admins are there on Wikipedia? Funny thing is, the admin I've just found has SP'd and MP'd an article for no good reason.

Like them or not, IPs can edit Wikipedia, so should admins be using their powers to impose their own POV by protecting articles all over the place. HTF do you become an admin if you've got a user box proclaiming that all users should register

Golly, I've got to say that in the Wikipedia universe there are few things that I hate more than administrators who semiprotect articles (particularly BLPs) and try to impose even the teensiest check on malicious editing.

The problem is almost entirely due to shared IPs, which are mostly school computers. These always include some vandals, and so you end up with the problems of a few bad-eggs spoiling things for everybody else, as in any society. Why else does the "real" world even require ID to drive or (to a lesser but significant extent) even to write letters to the editor in any print paper?

An IP who edits from home and is the only person using that IP, and who builds up a good "rep" over time, with lots of meaty diffs and no TALK page complaints, will eventually be treated just like any nameuser. Except their "name" happens be a number, like those characters on Star Trek and House. There's a famous case of one IP user whose rep got to be so good that people urged him/her to become an admin, even if they insisted on becoming an admin with an IP name! They refused (unfortunately). An admin with an IP-name would have been unique and interesting.

having an opinion like that doesn't mean you can't be a productive editor - its not a crazy view at all, even if its not the current "law". the fact is, registering a nickname is a very small barrier, and it does seem to be the case that most vandal edits come from IP addresses and brand new nicks.

Get away! I'd never have guessed. Anyway you're missing the point here guys. If an admin has POV against IPs he's going to protect articles all over the place even if they don't need protection, and that's just what this one has done.

Yawn. I've trying very hard to build up a sense of outrage over an admin who goes around sprotecting everything FOR NO REASON. ZOMG.

Could you send him over to the chemistry articles? NawlinWiki has already done some awesome and needed sprotection work over there, but we peons on project-chem can always use one admin more.

Well try harder. I found it easy, myself. And there's no point going over to Chemistry articles, they'll all be SP'd anyway - at least the important ones will be, even if they don't attact vandals.

No. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Helium, for example, has been intermittantly sprotected for YEARS. Currently it's open and unlocked, and the result is that there are 10 separate IP vendalisms in just the last page of 40 edits.

This kind of thing does NOT happen in French language articles on topiccs like helium--- I checked. And yet studies of IP contributions on Francophone WP-projects have been used to argue against tougher measures against IP editors on en.wiki. All this is old news for us at WR.

Unfortunately, some of the idiot admins who decide on spotection do it on the basis of vandlism frequency in time, not fraction of vandal-IP edits vs. constructive edits (total). A fraction which for "helium" right now is about 25%, which is about average for common vandal-attracting school topic articles.

I no longer revert vandalism changes like this unless they happen while happen to be right in the middle of actively editing the article, as it's a monster waste of my time. I see some good scientists and chemists continue to waste their intellectual resources doing this kind of work, and it makes me sad. If you think it's a waste of human potential to WRITE this stuff, think how much worse of a waste it is, to keep reverting it against some high school IP that has changed it to "helium is poop".

WP's essential structural encouragement aimed at wasting the time of its few experts in reverting vandal IPs (you see the user:MaterialScientist reverting Helium article vandalism?) is one of the really ugly things about it. Essentially this is the Pol Pot view that the scientists should be down in the mud weeding plants along with everybody else, if they haven't already been executed. I've compared the structure of WP to the Khmer Rouge more than once. Nobody gets killed, imprisoned, tortured, fired, censored, or had their books or papers burned on WP, but that's not because nobody would be willing to, I think. It's just because the administration of WP (including WMF where these policies originate) simply does not have the means.

Meanwhile, they do what they can to level the playing field between those who know what they're doing, and the children and barbarians. Who are difficult to tell apart in cyberspace, again see our second-favorite metaphor, which is Lord of the Flies.

I think I do know what I'm talking about but maybe I'm not explaining myself well, so here goes again.

If an article attracts little or no vandalism should it be SP'd - NO, it's against policy to do so; paraphrasing the policy, "don't SP as a preventative measure". Why then do some articles get SP'd when they are not subject to vandalism? Easy, becuase there's a load of admins who think registration should be required so they go around looking for articles that MIGHT be vandalised, and they SP them. That's all I'm saying. Those admins are sneakily imposing their POV on the project.

Who cares if its against policy or done unfairly? It operates to make WP work with a little bit more accountability.

Okay, time for you to provide some examples of articles that have been sprotected for no good reason, having had very little IP-vandalism history.

I'm not saying I've never seen it, but the reason in all cases I personally have seen, was the touchiness of some editor regarding that particular SUBJECT, such as the never-ending sprotection of Jimbo Wales' BLP, for example.

If you have some handy examples of articles sprotected with very little IP vandalism, simply (apparently) due to some editor's anti-IP-edit philosophy, just provide them. I already provided you with an example of an article which richly deserves permanent sprotection, but can't get it.

Your turn.

Tomorrow. I'm fighting a big (unrelated) battle over at Wikipedia at the moment.

I've never thought IP editing was a good idea (though I actually made my first edits as one). It takes a few seconds to register, and the benefits of logged-in editing far outweigh those logged-out.

Yeah, the commies were evil, and IP editing is not so great. Moving along.

Perhaps what you are talking about is a growing "assumption of guilt" attached to IP editors by jaded admins.

Yes, IP editors are treated like second class citizens for their lack of commitment to the game. Yes, IP editing is used against people even when they have done no wrong. Yes, it frustrate anal admins who want an fixed ID to pin stuff on ... an clearly defined opponent place to destroy.

IP editors are seen rather like a cult members who do not fully commit to the cult, i.e. wear the cult uniform, use the cult language.

They are not full "members".

Why don't we allow driveby visitors to the Wikipedia Review, if they're so awesome?

That begs the question. IPs can't edit if admins protect the articles or take other actions against them, which is the topic of the tread. I see this as a good thing.

Which begs the cry, "Why is this article (semi) protected, it hasn't been vandalised since... Oh."

True, but for most protected pages, the majority of constructive IP editors are prevented from editing because of the actions of a minority of nonconstructive IP editors. That's not a really good model of what an IP actually is; some IP editors have their reasons not to register for an account, and admins should not discriminate because they are IPs.

Getting rid of numeric IP edits would be a huge step forward on the vandalism front...

SITE — Sign In To Edit

It's a little silly that it was five times harder for me to post this message here (I'm a message-board savvy noob) than it is for someone to edit a Wikipedia article for the world, is it not?

I had to register, be accepted for my email account (AOL is okay, I see), receive a confirmation message, and click a link — a process taking two days — just to provide these words of wit.

Wikipedia should be at least as draconian. It would help keep the vandalism down to a manageable roar...


t

Yes, but they're deathy afraid that they'll change WP in some way as to kill the magic goose that is laying the golden egg, there. Since they have no idea what it is that is making it work, they don't dare change anything. I think Kelly Martin first made this point, and it's true.

It's a bit like the old Star Trek classic. It failed due to poor ratings. And was gone for good, so they thought. And then (probably like Jesus of Nazareth) it developed a fanatical following in re-run and became (finally) part of our shared culture, like, er, the New Testiment. Despite the fact that a third of the episodes suck greatly and another third are only so-so. (I think the Twilight Zone and the original Outer Limits had a better batting average).

Still, when you look at Star Trek, The Next Generation of the late 80's and early 90's, still under the aging Roddenbury, you see that they had no IDEA what they'd done in the 1960's, even then. It turns out that the music of the original show (including background music and noises) was tremendously important, as was the skilled acting of the major characters. Also scripts by established print SF writers, not TV writers. And the spartan look of the Enterprise NCC-1701 (no bloody letter A B C or D, as Scotty would say), was also essential to the look-and-feel. Even though driven by sheer prop cost necessity. Later, they got more money, and nearly killed the thing, by buying more props and kluging up that clean timeless futuristic look.

And whose idea was it to turn Trek into Battlestar Galactica and Lost in Space, which I hated even watching the original, by adding the Cute Kid? That idea-guy must die.

Anyway, Wikpedia is sort of like the original Star Trek. Its creator doesn't understand it. It's a shared creation with a life of its own. So it's still running along like Agatha Cristies' play The Mousetrap which I once saw myself at St. Martin's theater in 1977 when I was in London, and that had been running for 25 years and was famous for its longevity, even then. And is still running now. What the hell do you do with such a thing? Mainly, it appears, you figure out ways to not Fuck It Up. Even in places where it needs fixing.

I have argued before that it would also have the positive effect of removing from the administration a large number of those who have no interest in constructing reliable and comprehensive reference works. Skills appropriate to a nightclub bouncer or a riot policeman are useful in dealing with drunken people, rioters and so on. Not so good in dealing with encyclopedia builders.

Blatant Vandalism is easily undone. Vandalism isn't an excuse for anything, instead it has always been used by the administrators to argue why they need more power and why everyone else should have less.

Unregistered IPs scare these people because they can't mark them, can't track them, can't harass them. Can't report them to a noticeboard. Can't block you. This is the most important part: The unregistered IP has nothing to lose, they can't threaten to kick you out of their increasingly exclusive club to make you what they want. By not registering, you deny them power over yourself.

I recently edited as an unregistered IP like I were registered as a test and I found it to be the most effective way to troll the widespread Wikipedia cabal. Despite solely contributing constructively and remaining civil, I was reverted immediately and when calling them on it, and harassed and called a sock. (Which Isn't accurate)

This individual is speaking the truth here ... it is like being a non-believer hanging out at some cult headquarters.

Firstly, you get the facade and all the enthusiastic encouragement, then you get the gentle but firm prods and indications that it would be appropriate to join, then you are mocked, marginalised ... then you are fucked over until you leave after which it will be used against you to stigmatise you.

And, in my experience, if you do then later sign up ... YOU WILL BE DISHONESTLY ACCUSED OF BEING A SOCKPUPPET of previous IPs!

Folks, if you want to play on the internet, get an ISP who doles out dynamic IP address and set a timer to restart your router ever x minutes whilst 'on wiki' and consider making a habit of changing your resolution and browser UA string ... It wont stop them making blocks and accusations but it will undermine them.

See discussion below taken from discussion going on Catch 22 Absurdity elsewhere:


---- No need to tell the mass how the oracles read the bones or owl guts then!?! Let me call this guy on his BS right now, there is no magic involved


Will 'BeBack' McWhinney is one of the Founding Editors Journal of Transformative Education?

There is a nice discussion of Will BeBack's MO, from here. I know not the subject and do not pass judgement but I recognise the very, very, very common abuse MO. What on earth is a grown and educated man doing indulging in all this!?!

What a great find. It's Will at his "best", meaning his most arrogant and power-abusive.

I wonder what those ISGP fellows would do if they found out that "Will Beback" is in fact a middle-aged
gay man who works for the Los Angeles Police Dept, is a high-ranking official in the local chapter of the
Sierra Club, and is a rabid opponent of "fringe" political figures like LaRouche. Plus, he hates Scientology
with great irrational intensity. And is a well-placed member of Wikipedia's notorious "cabal".

Since the ISGP appears to be yet another conspiracy-theory group, all this will probably overwhelm them.
Too much weird and sneaky.

What is the user box?

Not only do I think all users should register, I think the site should be real names only. I think I'm pretty good at adhering to policy despite my own view but there you are.

I think a link to an identity would be a better idea, because of naming conflicts.

Small correction. It is not possible to hate Scientology with great irrational intensity. Any amount of hatred for Scientology, no matter how intense, is completely rational. If you don't know THIS, you don't know THEM.

Sure. I'm referring to it being a requirement that all edits be associated with a real person, to the best of the technical ability available. What exact handle is used is not as important as being able to click through to a page about the handle and know who the person behind the handle is.

So how does this work in practice? I look at an edit history and see that it is by an account named "John Smith". How do we know that the person who set up the account is indeed called John Smith? Has it been verified by the procedure currently used to verify stewards (however that works)? And suppose I wish to know more about this editor. Will he have been obliged to put his contact details on his user page? What about his CV?

And if this real name issue is to have any value, we need to know what his POV is and to be able to check for COIs. So we need an awful lot of detailed personal info. And all verified by the WMF, or it's pointless.

The question with regards to Forced Anonymity / Forced sign-in is this:

What is a greater problem for Wikipedia?

Is it: A) People who blank pages or replace sections with "PENIS"
Or is it: B) People forming cabals who control entire article complexes, forcefully removing people who do not support their one-sided POV and censoring contributions

If A is the #1 problem of Wikipedia, then forcing sign-in is adviseable.
If B is the #1 problem of Wikipedia, then forced registration will do nothing, or rather, make the problem worse.

I think real names are every bit as important as being able to click through histories.

Unfortunately, as with previous comments about Japan's honesty regarding lost items, I think that such identifying only works in a perfect world too.

There is far too much ignorance, prejudice and stigmatisation going on on the Wikipedia whose proponents use such information to wind up, persecute and "historically revise" opponents out of existence.

Under the current regime, I would rate the likelihood of an entirely anonymous 'content based' system succeeding over a 'personality based' one.

The best editors on the Wikipedia are already anonymous. They just get on doing good, non-controversial work and have no interest in the personality aspect of it ... many of them IP editors and many of them "banned".

IP editing should be disabled and all accounts should require (at least) an email verification. Any user who is in favor of IP editing should never be allowed to become an admin. Plus flagged revisions should be instituted.

And that's just being generous. You're a moron who needs to get a life. If your too lazy to register an account, then you don't deserve to be "writing an encyclopedia". End of story.


Well IP editing is pretty bad, you have to admit.

You talking about me? Just let me tell you I have registered an account, in fact, I've registered many accounts, so fuck off.

Doesn't matter. If you're such a bottom-feeding wikicrackhead that you'll go out of your way to defend the "rights" of morons to vandalize with IPs in the name of "free speech", while advocating censorship of any Wikipedian who's smart enough to realize that IP editing is a crock of shit, then you don't belong on the site (or any site) as far as I give a damn.

90% of vandalism comes from IPs, and good edits sure as hell don't come from idiots who are too lazy to spend the 5 seconds it takes to create a freaking account. This has been researched and documented, but you free kulture cultists are so hooked on your own kool-aid that you'd rather admins spend hours each day reverting 100s of vandal edits in the hopes of saving one "decent" IP edit (which probably isn't even all that decent, but hey at least it's not blatant vandalism).

This is why you morons suck and are a threat to the site. You don't have any common sense, you just repeat cute little religious mantras like "It's the Wiki Spirit to let IPs edit! Spread WikiLove!" or whatever until the truth goes away. You don't even edit from IPs - you said so yourself, yet you bitch and moan over the though of anon editing being banned. That alone proves what a brainwashed tool you are.

So go fuck yourself, fascist. You don't like fact that not all Wikipedians enjoy the taste of your koolaid? Deal with it, pussy.


The policy's the problem then, not the admins. Glad they're standing up to this stupidity imposed on them by brain-damanged 13 year olds with too much time on their hands.


Good to hear that they care way more about the project than you ever will.


Good. Let's hope they take it a step further and ban you and your ilk next. The site (and the world) will be better off.

And sometimes even then, right?




Yeah. People with a zero-tolerance for intolerance aren't worth tolerating, etc. Classical humanity problem.

There are apparently real statistics on this, so let's take a look at that instead of coming up with random statistics on the spot.



I haven't checked the references out myself, but feel free to take a look and see if they are full of it or not.

[Modnote: The off-topic posts related to Genocide (definition of), Stalinism, Marxism, etc have been moved to their own thread in the "Politics' forum.]

The first reference seems reasonably sound (though it should be replicated), but the essay you quote misstates the results when it says that "91.9% of edits to Wikipedia articles are constructive"; the reference states: "Other than determining whether an edit was vandalism, I did not make any value judgments. Thus, 'minor content changes' contains considerable amounts of unsourced material and original research that will certainly be reverted." A study that used WikiTrust or a similar system wouldn't suffer from this problem (as much). The claim that "unregistered users revert over a quarter (28.5%) of all vandalism" is also dubious, since the reference makes no distinctions based on the quality of the reverts: a sloppy revert (something registered users are less likely to do, in my experience) can embed vandalism in an article and make the destruction of content effectively permanent.

The second study is from 2004 and uses data from 2003; its only use in this discussion would be for evaluating how the prevalence of vandalism has changed since then.

You did see the part in the first reference that said: (It would be interesting to gather these statistics again at a time when US schools are in session.)

This would be interesting if the figures for registered users were grouped according to account age, revealing the point at which the "substantial content change" modus overtakes "vandalism", perhaps.

I did, yes, though I probably underestimated its importance.

Indeed, the Essjay problem. If WMF is complicit in that sort of thing, what can be done?

Yeah, he just admitted that he socks on WP. That must be why he hates the idea of having to register.


Since when does he have a zero-tolerance for intolerance? He's openly for disallowing adminship to users just for disagreeing with his fucked up view on editing. Hell, I have more tolerance than he does.

Look into how Google Knol does it, or how Amazon does it. That's good enough, doesn't have to be perfect. Just better than now. Which is a low bar.


Why would you ever need more than one?

Why would anyone need even one?

I give up. Why?

Oh, that's our left fielder!

So they can become an admin on WP. So they can become a checkuser on WP. So they can become an admin on Commons. So they can become a steward.

Isn't that why you have an account?