> I'll add that it doesn't take much to simply create an account and > create an article that says "I luv Jane Doe she iz so awsumtastic!!" > While banning anonymous creation in the mainspace had its good > intentions, it's probably not as useful now as it was intended.
> For instance, just today I speedy deleted a whole group of articles > about some classmates in a primary school somewhere in the UK. If > anons were allowed to create mainspace articles, and instead of a > registered user creating these articles we had an IP, then not only > would their be more transparency in who is creating them and where > (as only CheckUser can see underlying IPs from registered accounts), > but if blocks are needed to prevent disruption, we can make them > relatively short-term (instead of the common practice of > indefinitely blocking registered accounts as "vandalism-only"). <snip> Bad idea. I think we need to have a level above "autoconfirmed", where people can do things like gain additional rights (rollback, adminship, the like), and create articles. They need to have enough edits, and been here long enough so we can pass judgement on whether or not they are good faith. Emily On May 28, 2010, at 1:31 PM, MuZemike wrote: > I'll add that it doesn't take much to simply create an account and > create an article that says "I luv Jane Doe she iz so awsumtastic!!" > While banning anonymous creation in the mainspace had its good > intentions, it's probably not as useful now as it was intended. > > For instance, just today I speedy deleted a whole group of articles > about some classmates in a primary school somewhere in the UK. If > anons > were allowed to create mainspace articles, and instead of a registered > user creating these articles we had an IP, then not only would there > be > more transparency in who is creating them and where (as only CheckUser > can see underlying IPs from registered accounts), but if blocks are > needed to prevent disruption, we can make them relatively short-term > (instead of the common practice of indefinitely blocking registered > accounts as "vandalism-only"). > > Of course, it can also be argued that disallowing such editing may > indeed help in smart article creation by reducing the number of crap > articles (I mean complete crap) that gets created. There is probably > some tradeoff there in new page creation as far as anon creation is > concerned. > > -MuZemike > > On 5/28/2010 11:29 AM, Alan Liefting wrote: >> >> AGK wrote: >> >>> On 28 May 2010 16:48, Alan Liefting<alieft...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> A lot of rubbish articles get created >>>> that need to be speedied. >>>> >>>> >>> That's very true. And the CAT:CSD workload is more prone to backlog >>> than it was a couple of years ago, perhaps because RfA is not as >>> sympathetic to the 'recentchanges patrol' editors (the kind who keep >>> such backlogs down) of years gone by. >>> >>> AGK >>> >>> >> Keeping editing as a *very* open model makes extra work for the >> active >> editors. Since the anons cannot create new articles we are now >> getting >> millions (?) of bad faith editors creating an account to make edits. >> There are now over 12 million editors - many of them are blocked and >> many are "drive by" vandals with only a few edits. >> >> Account creation or new article creation by new users needs to be >> changed. >> >> >> Alan Liefitng >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
