zero 0000 wrote: hear a convincing plenty of cases when You must be looking at the wrong articles then. There's been a bunch of new material for which I've been grateful to anons for doing the scutwork of creating and filling in, and lots of grammar/spelling corrections from them too. Some of these are from IPs that become familiar, so I assume they have reasons for anonymity. I'm not averse to making anons be third-class though, logins with no real-world identification second-class, and real-world people as the first class. Anonymity cannot build the web of trust that we'll need for long-term stability and reliability, so we want to tolerate it but not encourage. (For instance, a quality rating system might elevate an article to where anons could no longer modify it.) Stan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to hear a convincing reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw plenty of cases when I wished they couldn't. Zero.

That's an important point. I tried things for a couple weeks before I was addicted enough to join.