Nyenyec N wrote:
I've been following this argument with great
interest for a long time.
I have to admit that I never really understood why anonymous editing
was such an important thing for so many people. Especially, since it
doesn't give you more privacy than a username does.
A typical internet user creates user accounts on dozens of sites. You
can't even read email without a user account. You can't even access
the internet without some sort of user account at your ISP.
I admit but sometimes it's convenient not having to log in, but both
the server and modern browsers help you remember your username /
password, so mostly it takes less than 10 seconds to log in.
And it seems that no one talks about this, but its soo *frustrating*
to communicate with anonymous users? Has the anonymous editor been
warned already not to upload copyrighted material? Not to write in ALL
CAPS? Pointed to various policies or guidelines? Was this her first
edit? You can't tell, because they don't have a user name.
Can anyone tell if Wikipedia wouldn't have reached its current size if
you required the creation of a user account, just like 99.9% of the
websites does?
Did anonymous editing make such a great difference? Can someone prove it?
-- nyenyec
Many people don't want to get fully involved at first. I was one of
them, and many Wikipedians I've talked to also started out this way. If
we had to pass through the registration barrier, all of us would never
have joined. As it occurred, we joined after making at least a few dozen
edits and realising how addictive Wikipedia was. This is of course
purely anecdotal, but based on it, I have no doubt at all when I say
Wikipedia would not be anywhere near its present size if you could not
contribute without registering from the start.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])