Grants talk:IdeaLab/Force people to log in when they edit

Comments

How does this relate to harassment? --Nemo 15:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Opposition (moved from the main page)

• Requiring registration won't do anything as long as it's easy enough to create an account, except to make it harder to file abuse reports (a negative). However, it may not be a bad idea to indef softblock IPs that are clearly shared (schools, libraries, big corporations, government agencies, etc), not because of the abuse coming from them, but to prevent innocent people from being victims to harassment aimed at someone else who was editing from the same IP. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Example: A high school student sees vandalism and removes it. The vandal gets mad and replaces the IP talk page with "<redacted> YOU WIKIPEDIA YOU ALL SLIME". Meanwhile, in the same school district is a 4th grader looking up information for her school project when she see the "You have new messages" banner. "TEACHER, SOMEBODY'S BEING MEAN TO ME ONLINE!" So much for students having access to Wikipedia from that school district's network. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • One advantage I see to doing this across the board is that it would eliminate "schoolblocks" and "anonblocks" once and for all because the heavy handed would have no idea what IP people were using. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Are the majority of IP edits disruptive? I'd like to see figures backing that up. Back in 2007, an editor did a study that found some 80% of IP edits were not vandalism. That was 9 years ago, so things may have changed, but I have seen many constructive IP edits, probably at about the same rate as disruptive edits. I still think that Wikimedia should allow anonymity.--3family6 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• NO. Anyone can edit WP, and so i think everyone should be able to edit it as easily as possible. <comment redacted> — The preceding unsigned comment was added by BeKowz (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• registering is a thing that an abusive user can do easily, while a good-faith newcomer may find difficult to do at first. Musings about unregistered contributors has more detail. In my opinion the solution is better tools for review of new edits, creation of smaller wikis (split Wikipedia into a few subsections by topic more clearly, give WikiProjects their own subdomains), increase in the number of helpers such as reviewers and sysops. --Gryllida 00:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm opposed, but not fervently as I'm not an experienced Wikipedian. I'd simply like to have it on record that I sometimes make small edits from my university's IP range, without logging in (e.g. when I'm using one of their public computers). I can imagine that there are many more people that contribute small corrections without logging in and which would not be providing such contributions if they had to log in every time, because the trivial costs (logging in, possibly using a password manager which adds a few extra clicks, instead of Click Edit -> Fix typo -> Save) do not outweigh the trivial benefits (small corrections). --Doveofsymplegades 18:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• There is a theory that a significant proportion of IP edits are bad, and that requiring all editors to create an account would keep more of the good edits currently done by IPs than it would keep of the bad edits. An alternative theory, one I suspect is truer, is that vandals and harassers do the minimum necessary to do their harassment. By this theory, a significant proportion of IP edits are bad, requiring all editors to create an account would keep more of the bad edits currently done by IPs than it would keep of the good edits; But it would also make bad edits harder to spot. WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. While overall, the majority of edits that do not intent to help Wikipedia come from IP editors, it's also true that the majority of edits that IP editors make intend to help Wikipedia. In fact, on Wikipedia approximately 75-85% of edits by IP editors are constructive. Wikipedia has had IP editors with tens of thousands of edits and great experience on talk pages. Clearly, many IP editors are familiar with Wikipedia but for whatever reason choose to remain anonymous. Forcing them to log in would likely involve losing a significant portion of experienced editors on Wikipedia who choose to remain IP-anonymous. IPs are not the problem and even the occasional editor can spot something missed by everyone else. Vandals and harassers are the problem. Appable (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• None of the “endorse” have any numbers, only opinions. The only oppose with an number is right above me, and they show no source, either. My opinion is that some people in some countries, because of business or politics, may not want an account. Registering may stop schoolkids from posting “Jimmy stinks”, but anyone who has been here knows how easy it is to make a sock. Without some numbers... Sammy D III (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: This detracts from the whole open idea of Wikipedia. Catmando999 (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Doesn't this idea defeat the purpose of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit? While I agree in principle (that many IP's are trolls, and we'd be better off without them), it would be far too hypocritical to ban people who don't register. Think of the media backlash: "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that some people can edit." And besides, someone could just register and vandalize, since anyone can still register. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Everyone can edit wiki. But I think an edit made by an unregistered user must be appoved by an registered user Woowooa (talk)
• strong oppose we see the never ending crusade for more tools to block people: pending changes; ip blocks with 3 year blocks for libraries; filters for librarians adding more than 3 EL's per 20 min; stop being the asshole, and start being civil. Slowking4 (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Requiring registration won't do anything as long as it's easy enough to create an account, except to make it harder to file abuse reports (a negative). However, it may not be a bad idea to indef softblock IPs that are clearly shared (schools, libraries, big corporations, government agencies, etc), not because of the abuse coming from them, but to prevent innocent people from being victims to harassment aimed at someone else who was editing from the same IP. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Example: A high school student sees vandalism and removes it. The vandal gets mad and replaces the IP talk page with "<redacted> YOU WIKIPEDIA YOU ALL SLIME". Meanwhile, in the same school district is a 4th grader looking up information for her school project when she see the "You have new messages" banner. "TEACHER, SOMEBODY'S BEING MEAN TO ME ONLINE!" So much for students having access to Wikipedia from that school district's network. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • One advantage I see to doing this across the board is that it would eliminate "schoolblocks" and "anonblocks" once and for all because the heavy handed would have no idea what IP people were using. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Are the majority of IP edits disruptive? I'd like to see figures backing that up. Back in 2007, an editor did a study that found some 80% of IP edits were not vandalism. That was 9 years ago, so things may have changed, but I have seen many constructive IP edits, probably at about the same rate as disruptive edits. I still think that Wikimedia should allow anonymity.--3family6 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• NO. Anyone can edit WP, and so i think everyone should be able to edit it as easily as possible. <comment redacted> — The preceding unsigned comment was added by BeKowz (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• registering is a thing that an abusive user can do easily, while a good-faith newcomer may find difficult to do at first. Musings about unregistered contributors has more detail. In my opinion the solution is better tools for review of new edits, creation of smaller wikis (split Wikipedia into a few subsections by topic more clearly, give WikiProjects their own subdomains), increase in the number of helpers such as reviewers and sysops. --Gryllida 00:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm opposed, but not fervently as I'm not an experienced Wikipedian. I'd simply like to have it on record that I sometimes make small edits from my university's IP range, without logging in (e.g. when I'm using one of their public computers). I can imagine that there are many more people that contribute small corrections without logging in and which would not be providing such contributions if they had to log in every time, because the trivial costs (logging in, possibly using a password manager which adds a few extra clicks, instead of Click Edit -> Fix typo -> Save) do not outweigh the trivial benefits (small corrections). --Doveofsymplegades 18:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• There is a theory that a significant proportion of IP edits are bad, and that requiring all editors to create an account would keep more of the good edits currently done by IPs than it would keep of the bad edits. An alternative theory, one I suspect is truer, is that vandals and harassers do the minimum necessary to do their harassment. By this theory, a significant proportion of IP edits are bad, requiring all editors to create an account would keep more of the bad edits currently done by IPs than it would keep of the good edits; But it would also make bad edits harder to spot. WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. While overall, the majority of edits that do not intent to help Wikipedia come from IP editors, it's also true that the majority of edits that IP editors make intend to help Wikipedia. In fact, on Wikipedia approximately 75-85% of edits by IP editors are constructive. Wikipedia has had IP editors with tens of thousands of edits and great experience on talk pages. Clearly, many IP editors are familiar with Wikipedia but for whatever reason choose to remain anonymous. Forcing them to log in would likely involve losing a significant portion of experienced editors on Wikipedia who choose to remain IP-anonymous. IPs are not the problem and even the occasional editor can spot something missed by everyone else. Vandals and harassers are the problem. Appable (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• None of the “endorse” have any numbers, only opinions. The only oppose with an number is right above me, and they show no source, either. My opinion is that some people in some countries, because of business or politics, may not want an account. Registering may stop schoolkids from posting “Jimmy stinks”, but anyone who has been here knows how easy it is to make a sock. Without some numbers...Change to endorse, I found numbers. Sammy D III (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: This detracts from the whole open idea of Wikipedia. Catmando999 (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Doesn't this idea defeat the purpose of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit? While I agree in principle (that many IP's are trolls, and we'd be better off without them), it would be far too hypocritical to ban people who don't register. Think of the media backlash: "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that some people can edit." And besides, someone could just register and vandalize, since anyone can still register. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Everyone can edit wiki. But I think an edit made by an unregistered user must be appoved by an registered user Woowooa (talk)
• Oppose. The idea that anyone can edit is a core principle of Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Per Nemo on top of the section and Neotarf above. Aren't non-registered users the main contributors to Wikipedia? NB.- Moving the Opposition from the main page does not make too much sense, or rather, makes too much sense.Joe McNeill (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since only the endorsements are on the main page, I'm creating a sub-section here.
I'm not opposed to this idea per se, I do, however, think that its implementation would be far more beneficial if combined with a verification system/process. Under the idea in its current form people who abuse and/or harass only have maximum hurdle of three-steps to overcome in order to continue the abuse: create a new throwaway email address (if they don't want to use one they have already) and then register that with an account on-wiki before logging in. Even though an additional three-step process is potentially better than a zero-step process and may deter some abusers, in my experience, people who want to abuse and harass will overcome those steps without much effort at all. This is because, at the end of the day, registering an email address does not really reveal anything particularly identifying about the person, and as long as one can create infinite email addresses, they can create infinite number of registered WP accounts. On the same principle, an additional verification system is not perfect either and can certainly be overridden by the more patient/persistent abusers. It does however add several more steps to the process, if one wanted to properly fly under the radar, which could deter a larger number of abusers.
Also, it's been brought up already that the very idea of logging in and therefore having to register goes against one of Wikipedia's very core principles: that anyone can edit. Could there be a silver lining between this principle and the suggested idea, if we were to implement a time-delay or number-of-edits-allowed before the requirement to register-&-log-in-in-order-to-edit kicks in? Just a thought. Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Me too!" Or actually, it is not a good solution to simply say "Force people to log in when they edit" when there is no way to figure out if two accounts are the same person or not. Before we say that people should log in we need a way to verify that the accounts are in fact unique. It is possible to verify that without having to actually identify the person. — Jeblad 13:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this fair? All oppose comments were moved to a different place, where they cannot be compared to endorse. Then they are labeled as "Comments/suggestions moved from endorsement setion" when they were not in the endose section. They were oppose, which is not pointed out. Sammy D III (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC) User:Sammy D III, I think this is dubious as well. I've made a topic on the Talk page of IdeaLab to address this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab#Add_Opposition_to_the_main_page --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC) I just reread every word on this board, and I see not a single fact. How many registered vs. unregistered edits are made? By total content, or total edits? What percentage of reg/unreg edits are vandalism? How many vandal edits do reg/unreg make before they go away? How much time and effort does it take to repair reg/unreg vandal damage? Aren't these some of the many questions that should be addressed? I see a group of generally pretty smart people, who regularly read, source, and discuss some very deep subjects, acting like a lynch mob. They seem to be trying to change a basic Wikipedia principle without one actual piece of evidence, only the opinions of the old-timers. The actual problem, which most (including me) feel is real, has not even been shown to exist. Only opinions. Then any oppose comments are suppressed. I am going to try post this at the other side, so both sides can read it. Then I may just shake my head and slink away. Have a nice day everyone. Sammy D III (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC) yes, it is fair. this is not an oppositional tribunal, like arbcom. rather, it is a workshop. you shouldn't image that the bad ideas will get funded or done. Slowking4 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Slowking4, you were right a week ago. We have had this [1] huge "IdeaLab and staff conduct" discussion. In the future the front page should be made clearer, and "endorse" and "oppose" positions will be given equal time. Discussions on hold for Wikimania. Hey, I'm having a great day, I hope you can, too. Sammy D III (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to correct spelling mistakes without login?

Would a log in be also needed to correct a spelling mistake? Is there a way to allow such corrections without making an opening to trolls? Perhaps change 1 word/sentence and then it doesn't work for another xx minutes/hours?

Grants to improve your project

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. The deadline for draft submissions is tommorrow. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

• Submit a grant request
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants or Project and Event Grants

The next open call for Project Grants will be in October 2016. You can also consider applying for a Rapid Grant, if your project does not require a large amount of funding, as applications can be submitted anytime. Feel free to ping me if you need help getting your proposal started. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)