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

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Force people to log in when they edit
please add a 1-2 sentence summary after 'summary='
Hex icon with lightning white.svg
idea creatorMmroos1983
Hex icon with hand white.svg
volunteerVmaxarAdriBer10WoowooaHEWRAJHorsegeekSantidrSymphanticade
join
endorse
created on08:40, Friday, June 3, 2016 (UTC)


Project idea[edit]

What is the problem you're trying to solve?[edit]

The harassment and vandalizing of Wikipedia pages

What is your solution?[edit]

Force people to log in

Project goals[edit]

Force log in for edits

Use an automated banning system

New users have less rights

Get involved[edit]

Participants[edit]

  • Volunteer I want to help at this Idea AdriBer10 (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Anything to help this idea Woowooa (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Volunteer I'll do anything I can to help. Horsegeek (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Volunteer worked 8 years in video game industry. I'm great with software development cycles (agile/scrum) and would love to try to manage something online. Symphanticade (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Volunteer i'm supporting this idea, i think its crucial to identify the people trying to corrupt the page content Santidr (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Volunteer It would be great to also have account legitimacy rating. If someone adds a part to a page and I read it and it is wrong I could see and lower that users legitimacy rating and vice versa. Vmaxar (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements[edit]

  • It stops a lot of trolls, most wont take the time to maken new account over and over again. DietrichXD (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The benefits of allowing IP editing or multiple anonymous accounts are minimal. The costs are those of vandalism or trollery. It is time to expand personal responsibility by instituting a one-person, one-account and sign-in-to-edit policy, which would make actually banning bad actors possible. Carrite (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good idea Xxanthippe (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Because we see far too many racist, sexist or otherwise offensive and threatening comments from unregistered IPs, often using proxies. RolandR (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • well increases social pressure to behave according to standards Rikuti (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • it is a good idea Bluexephos70 (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been advocating this idea for years. Yes, "anyone can edit" is a fundamental wiki principle; but in view of the ineluctable fact that most vandalism and harassment on WP is IP-generated, wouldn't it make more sense to require all editors to open an account, since "anyone can register" as well? DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Lynda Roy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good proposal. While it's definitely important to make it easy for users to contribute to Wikipedia, I think the problems that arise from granting everyone (including passing vandals) the privilege of immediate, easy, anonymous editing slightly outweigh the benefits. Creating an account is easy, and shouldn't be an impediment to anyone who honestly wishes to make useful contributions to the project. Huwmanbeing (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Should be done long time ago. While I do see good IP edits every now and then - vast majority of them is spam / vandalism / trolling. SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have seen a lot of vandalism on Wikipedia, and in most os the time, it comes from unregistered users(the numbers of registered users committing vandalism is very little). Forcing the users to register on Wikipedia would make vandalism fight easier, and it still would be possible for everyone to contribute. Adilson1997 (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wiki has been a great help for my school and college projects. although im am not an active contributer to the site...i well know how harassment is, as some of my friends work as moderators of a Game Forum Traitortanmay 13:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Great idea! I believe that the log in will help in solving this problem. Anita (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good idea ! Many (most ?) spam / vandalism are made by IP. And there is also the problem of dynamic IP. If WP blocks one, they use another IP. Perhaps, at the beginning of WP, some people may encounter difficulties to register. But now, it is a usual way on many web sites. Registration must be mandatory! --Tangopaso (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It will make people more responsible, especially not to force own opinions through. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:11, 3 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)
    • I would really prefer my university's IP range not to be softblocked
  • The innocent create one ID, and re-use it. The burden is between zilch and tiny. Vandals must do that every time. Cumulative burden much greater. Self-evidently sensible, and long overdue. JDAWiseman (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Being logged helps to find the abusive user and block him. MaCz Cruz (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a very good idea. -- issimo 15 !? 17:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good idea.--Randeerjayasekara (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Everyone who honestly wants to contribute won't have a problem with creating an account. There could be verification processes like captchas to avoid fake accounts. Fresh Marv (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It will also combat the continual vandalism of pages. KirksKeyKard (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I second Huwmanbeing, Addison1997 and Tangopaso. --Plauz (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I strongly support this measure. Profoss (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • sp 186.220.52.85 19:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've seen how people behave when they edit and discuss while they're not logged in. Having people be required to be logged in will definitly help. It's less time consuming to change one's IP address than to make a new account. Forcing trolls and harassers to make a new account every time their blocked, rather than just change IP, will most definitely lower the amount of harassment and bullying. Good faith users can still just register and edit as they please. Good faith users will do that anyway. Telaneo (User talk page) 20:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with the idea to force login for everyone. Misibacsi (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've never been a proponent of an open wiki. Not only should we require editors to log-in, they should have to identify to WMF. Make it as hard as possible for people to edit not only to keep out ne'er-do-wells but also enable the community to legally prosecute offenders. If we keep treating the wiki like a hobby site, it'll continue to be manned by hobbyists. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This has been my hobby since 2009, but I guess I shouldn't be here. With the number of lame articles around here, shouldn't you be recruiting hobbyists? Sammy D III (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It is simply good etiquette. If you cannot behave yourself, you will not be allowed to play. Mkw813 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I only have one problem. I know that accounts can be easily made but some schools (like mine) are blocked with no account creation allowed. I only was able to make an account by asking for one manually but it takes a few days! An endangered project could be deleted by then! a_creeper_won
  • Creo que más bien el asunto es no permitir que usuarios no registrados editen. Ya basta de ser tan libres, eso nos quita tiempo a los usuarios y jode a los lectores. Registrarse es facilísimo. Si alguien no desea registrarse, puede dejar sus comentarios en la página de discusión. Humberto Torrejón (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am an example of how a mindless policy of "ban the trolls" and "make them log in" might not help. Since 2007, I am perma-banned from the English wikipedia for, in my opinion, trying to keep the blatant bias out of the Intelligent design article. I have made thousands of contributions, before the ban and after. So, of course, I have been editing anyway (as anon IP) since the ban, since I refuse to sock-puppet. Many of my edits stick. I have several articles where I have written the lede which has stood the test of time. You might want to consider the good that anon IPs have made that is just under the cover of visibility. Rbj (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree on this solution! Emrys66 (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree on this solution! And then add, they must have a User page that identifies who they are, with a picture of them. I've been harrassed so many times. But then as a caveat to Rbj above, I hope he can come back to Wikipedia and not have to be anon.WHEELER (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • bingo Symphanticade (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree 100%. I think that registered people only should be allowed to modify the WP Articles. That would eliminate the costly efforts to eradicate vandalisms by the WP Community. I think that it would be useful too, to require always an e-mail adress to the people who want to register first. This adress shall of course be kept secret by WP System and changed by the owner only, how it is now, but WP System can send a message to this adress as the new member enter the community, so WP can be sure that it is not matter of fake adress. User:K.Weise (User talk:K.Weise)
  • L'anonymat ne doit pas permettre l'irresponsabilité. Epopoi27 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, because in my 6-years experience on WP, I have encountered so many trolls and a so big amount of vandalism, mostly from IP. The rule "anyone can edit" is not realistic, it's only wishfull thinking.Jpjanuel
  • It would provide identification for those that are serial harassers. Lorick7 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a great way to control the trolls since the site will block them. I guess that maybe losing some good contributions by people without accounts is not a big price to pay for it... one thing for the other. Ggslm (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Numbers I jst saw look like content quality improves a lot when IPs are blocked. Sammy D III (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good Idea. Lunatix42 (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This would help a lot Vmaxar (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree. Although it would be interesting to see how many anonymous edits are minor edits, how many are substantive, etc.. Drcwright (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If one of the fundamental characteristics of the Wikimedia movement is transparency, then creating a traceable login is a step in that direction. - Kosboot (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

[Opposition on talk page]

Mixed[edit]

  • Stopping IP editing could stop many trolls, but could also stop some positive contributors. I'd like to see some research on the tradeoffs. Also there may be other options, say, flagging every IP edit as in flagged revisions. Perhaps there might be almost no effect, as both good faith and trolling editors may adapt easily. Have the WMF sponsor some real research on the issue. Smallbones (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not sure that requiring people to log in would help. My niece, who is a pedant for correct use of English, frequently uses Wikipedia, but does not edit it, except to make grammatical and spelling corrections that bug her. On the other hand, I had long and bruising battle with an editor who, after he was banned, used sockpuppet accounts to harass me.
As far as I can see, the only sure way to cover both bases is to set up a mechanism to ensure that editors who have been blocked or banned cannot set up sockpuppet accounts. This means requiring editors to identify themselves which runs contrary to Wikipedia's policy of anonymity. One idea that has crossed my mind is for an editor identification scheme to be set up in a country that has strict privacy rules (for example Switzerland). Such a scheme would be protected by that country's privacy laws from disclosing editor's identities except under strictly controlled conditions. However, disclosures used as "EditorA and EditorB appear to be the same person" (without identifying either EditorA or EditorB would be far less strictly controlled. Martinvl (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Expand your idea[edit]

Would a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation help make your idea happen? You can expand this idea into a grant proposal.

Expand into a Rapid Grant
Expand into a Project Grant
(launching July 1st)