--- Fl Celloguy <flcelloguy(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
The proposal would
indubitably mean the blocking
(using this logged-in only registration) of most AOL
IPs, Netscape IPs,
school districts, public-use computers, and major
corporations.
And how is this wrong?
By only
allowing logged-in users on these IPs (since it is
inevitable that all of
them would either be blocked indefinitely or blocked
consistently),
This is not the case -- editors far outnumber vandals.
This would simply force editors who have 1) previously
been unlogged in and 2) happen to be on a IP used by
vandals, to register and log in. Whats wrong with
that?
opinion, is against the spirit of the Wiki -
we're
here to allow *anyone* to
edit, not just those who want to create accounts.
Bah. This affects only vandal IPs, which are fewer
than larger. Logging in doesnt (necessarily)
compromise anonymity -- not unless there is some
unprincipled turning over of user logs to third
parties. In fact, logging in offers more anonymity,
wheras an IP address is in fact an identifier. Using
dynamic IPs for anonymity is just a defacto method to
increase anonymity -- it does not in fact *provide
such.
This blocking
policy proposal would take
us one step closer to not allowing any anonymous
editing - AOL, school
districts, and public-use computers comprise a large
amount of our editing,
and many are valuable editors and contributors that
we may lose if this
policy is implemented.
Bah. Your rant simply repeats a lot of the same claims
and fears without basing them in substance. If youre
just worried that range blocks would become used too
routinely, then thats a concern to address later
--when such actually becomes a problem.
SV
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com