- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:14:04 +0000
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
+1 to everything that Doug said. --tobie On 10/17/12 6:07 PM, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org> wrote: >Hi, folks- > >tl;dr: I don't support anonymous editing on the wiki. > > >Rationale: >While I appreciate the arguments about lowering barriers, I strongly >support Janet and Scott's reasoning. I think that pseudonymity is a >sufficiently low barrier to contribution in practice. > >Requiring users to make an account before making changes may dissuade >some users, but it will actually encourage those who have made an >account to make more than a single edit, and to learn what kind of edits >best match expectations. > > >On the subject of attribution, there are 2 sides to it: fame and blame. > >"Fame" is getting recognition for your work, and many studies have shown >that this not only increases contributions, but also the personal >satisfaction, accomplishment, and sense of belonging in the >contributors, which is important for the long-term health of this >project and its community. > >"Blame" at its most innocuous is giving readers (or reusers) the ability >to evaluate any given contribution for viewpoint or potential bias, and >in the most serious case, the ability to audit or remove edits by a >particular contributor (for any number of reasons, like incorrect >information, copyright violation, or outright malice). > >(On a side note, just because Wikipedia has used a policy around >anonymous edits while using CC-BY-SA doesn't mean it's a best >practice... only that it happens to have worked in their particular >case; I don't think it would work as well in our smaller community.) > > >Even with pseudonymous accounts required, I still support using the >AbuseFilters. > >Regards- >-Doug > >p.s. I trimmed this down to just the anonymity topic, since I think it's >a very different issue than template protection or sharing the site's >source code. > > >On 10/16/12 8:43 PM, David Singer wrote: >> >> I also agree that anonymous mods are not desirable. If we needed to >> protect people's privacy or anonymity, maybe, but we're not running >> Wikileaks. >> >> On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:43, Alex Komoroske wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Janet Swisher wrote: >>> >>>> Wikipedia (i.e., Wikimedia Foundation) doesn't seem to see any >>>> conflict between anonymity and attribution, since they allow >>>> anonymous edits and use CC-BY-SA. Anonymous edits on Wikipedia are >>>> logged in page history by IP address. Allowing anonymity lowers >>>> the barrier to participation to as low as possible. >>>> >>>> However, raising the barrier to entry even slightly increases the >>>> sense of community; requiring contributors to claim an identity >>>> enables long term interactions and encourages responsibility for >>>> one's actions. I think the benefits of encouraging long-term >>>> identities (even if pseudonymous) outweigh the benefits of >>>> anonymity. This is also not a context where anonymity is needed >>>> for personal safety or confidentiality. >>> >>> >>> +1 to this whole paragraph. >>> >>> >>>> On 10/16/12 11:41 AM, Scott Rowe wrote: >>>>> The other issue Tomato raised was that of anonymous edits. Are >>>>> there implications for content imported from elsewhere under >>>>> CC-By-SA? What about under the CC-By license for the site generally? >>>>> >>>>> Frankly, I don't think anonymous editing serves to improve >>>>> collaboration or the quality of the documentation. As a curator >>>>> and contributor, I'd like to be able to correspond with other >>>>> editors. I also think that responsibility is the best policy, period. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Chris Mills wrote: >>>> >>>>>> It certainly sounds worth checking out the Abuse Filter, >>>>>> and considering anonymous edits, to normal pages at >>>>>> least. Templates and stuff I wouldn't be so sure of. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15 Oct 2012, at 18:43, Taylor Costellowrote: >>>> >> >>>>>>> Last topic, I want to open up anonymous edits on the >>>>>>> wiki. Our Q&A has anonymous posting, but not our wiki! >>>>>>> Let me just throw out there that anonymous editing is >>>>>>> very easy to watch, any user can revert a bad edit. We >>>>>>> also have AbuseFilters that will protect from obvious >>>>>>> spam and tag edits for admins to look at. Any admin can >>>>>>> add more AbuseFilters in the situation where we need to >>>>>>> adjust to new spam methods. There are a ton of benefits >>>>>>> to allowing anonymous wiki editing, and most of the >>>>>>> negative argument being "to prevent spam". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can check out the AbuseFilter here: >>>>>>> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 16:14:34 UTC