Posting by newcomers should be limited, but not banned
(Redirected from Posting by anonymous users should be limited, but not banned)Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following proposal is a modified proposal, based in part on "Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles":
- Non-registered Users may post to the site, but there will be a limit (say 5) to the number of postings that can be made every 24 hours by an anonymous IP number. This will not stop anonymous vandals, but it will limit the amount of damage that a single individual can do.
- After an IP number reaches its limit for the day, further attempts to edit articles will generate a message informing the user of the limit and inviting him/her to register.
- Registration as a User should be made more difficult to deter the frivolous and the mischievous. New registrants will be allowed to make up to 25 edits during their first day as a registered user. After that, registered users who have supplied an ISP-based email (not a Hotmail account) will have no limit on the number of edits they can do. Users who do not supply an ISP-based email will remain limited to 25 edits per day.
- No more than 10 Users can be registered within a 24-hour period from any single IP number. Combined with the rules above, this means that it would be possible in theory for someone to create 10 different User IDs and engage in up to 250 acts of vandalism, but they would find it difficult to do so, and few would go to that much trouble.
- There be two levels of registration, Users and Editors. Only Editors can make "minor changes."
- Promotion from User to Editor status would be by nomination by two other Editors, and given only to Users who have good English and have shown they can write in an encyclopaedic style.
- Articles may be nominated for Completed Article status. Nominations must be seconded by another User, and there must be a week's time for objections. Once an article is registered as Completed, it may only be edited with the approval of a review panel of some sort.
- A higher level of WP would be created, with another name since it would not strictly speaking be a Wiki, at which only Completed Articles would be visible.
User:Sheldon Rampton 03:58, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- What is an IP-based email ? Anthere
- That was a cut-and-paste from the original proposal. I think it should be "ISP-based email." --Sheldon Rampton 06:38, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I dont like the idea that anonymous users shouldn't be able to contribute as much as they want. Also, some users don't have an email provided by their ISP, so they would be excluded from editing. Perl 17:54, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. I believe that if any Wiki ever implements this, if a user who registered under a non-ISP email's contributions are found to be suitable after he/she has made a certain number (say, maybe 100), then he/she should be granted full benefits. Overall I like the current system. The most I'd go is perhaps limit anonymous users to five contributions a day. 184.108.40.206 16:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
- The topic above suggest the limits on anonymous users but those rules extend to define a user/editor monarcy, also. I feel if there simply was a way to disble edits for anonymous users if a page is disputed, registered users could make quality edits to resolve the disputes. That seems like a simple start. - Mr. Ballard (on Wikipedia) 04:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I support the proposal to limit IP edits, but separating registered users and editors will require further review.--Jusjih 10:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Too complicated and actually ineffective. Quarantine anonymous edits for a 2-3 days, and newuser edits for a day, and add a button to flag them as important. Shorter time period for minor edits, when verified by hamming distance. Release from quarantine automatically if noone objects, sooner if a non-newuser approves them. Allow the use of Tor etc, as well as Gmail/hotmail/whatnotmail addresses to preserve (and indeed improve) actual anonymity. Nothing else needs be done. w:User:Zuiram
- That only stops bots, and not all vandals are bots. 220.127.116.11 23:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)