[WikiEN-l] Anons banned from creating articles

Tue Dec 6 16:36:03 UTC 2005

On 12/6/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
> >My guess is that it's an experiment that will turn into a permanent
> >policy change if it turns out to be useful.
> >
> >
> But there does not appear to be any actual criteria under which it can
> be judged to fail.  The only way it will be rescinded, basically, is if
> Jimbo changes his mind about it being a good idea, because there's no
> way he can be proven wrong about it being a good idea.  No one has even
> informally defined what it would mean for it to be "successful", much
> less suggested how to measure that.
>
I'd say wait a week or two, and then let Jimbo present us with the
evidence showing that it was successful.  If you'd like, you can
present us with some evidence showing that it wasn't successful.

> One possible criterion: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia
> (counting new page creation and edits to existing pages) decreases.
>
> Another one: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia not caught
> within [x] hours (again counting both) decreases.
>
It would be far too easy for people to game the system if these
criteria were presented ahead of time.  Maybe you should talk to Jimmy
privately and agree upon some metrics.  Don't tell us what they are
until the experiment is over, though.

> Is anyone prepared to measure either of these, or some other useful
> statistic?
>
> -Mark

I'm not, because I don't think the decision as to whether or not users
that aren't logged in can create new articles is that big of a deal
(and to the extent it is it's a culture change whose effect won't
become obvious for years).  But you and Jimmy might be.

Anthony