On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29 April 2012 02:32, Andreas Kolbe <
jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does that make sense though? With an account called "Starwarrior", say,
> there is no way of knowing who made the edit either.
it's still a name. It tells you about as much as "John Smith" would.
You can hold that account holder responsible for their actions. With a
role account, they can just say it wasn't them.
With respect, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please consider:
1. We allow IP editing. One IP may be shared by thousands of people. Any one of them can "say it wasn't them". If we are so careless about one half of edits made to Wikipedia, does it make sense to be so stringent about the other half?
2. Even where we have an account name like John Smith and know the account's IP address, it is not trivial to move from that knowledge to identifying the person – especially if the IP address is a proxy, a dynamic IP, or an Internet café in Calcutta. How does having an account name like John Smith help there?
3. It's happened before that several people have shared an account. I can recall a desysop over account sharing. We have no control over that, regardless of what the account name is.
Compared to that, identifying the person editing Wikipedia at Monmouth Museum is a cinch. Especially if User:MonmouthMuseumWales says on her user page, "This account is operated by Roisin Curran, the Wikipedian in residence at Monmouth Museum."
Surely, that would give us as much transparency as we could ever want? In fact, rather more transparency than we have for all our pseudonymous users?
I am not saying we should allow role accounts. I am just not convinced by the arguments brought forward here.
And I do think that the present admin practice of blocking role accounts on sight is unfriendly and should stop. I was instrumental in getting Xeno to change [[WP:UAAI]] in February 2011 to say that accounts using organisation names should *not* be blocked on sight if they edit productively, but that admins should *talk* to people first.
So it's very disappointing to see that this still goes on, especially if the person at the receiving end is someone on a project like Monmouthpedia. Wikipedia is shooting itself in the foot.
Andreas