Forum:Registered Users Only Allowed To Edit

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Registered Users Only Allowed To Edit
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 August 2008 by Earthere.

Hi folks. I've decided it was time to lay this idea out on the table for all to discuss.

Why do we have registered accounts on the Wiki? To be able to edit the wiki and people can identify us by our edits, correct? So why do we allow anonymous editing?

The problem with anonymous editing is that far too many vandals come along and try to insert nonsense, blank pages, delete content, put misleading content in, advertise riots, and just be a pain in the neck day in and day out.

An excellent way to mitigate vandalism here and reduce strain on people combatting it is to restrict write access to registered accounts only. Talk pages could be edited by anonymous accounts perhaps.

Proposal: Only allow registered accounts to make mainspace edits.

Let the debate begin.Planeshifted 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose - This proposed policy goes against the entire idea of a wiki. Anonymous editing is for those who don't wish to create an account, or to remain anonymous. The point of counter vandal volunteers and admins are to keep the wiki clean of vandalism and overall improve the quality of the encyclopedia. Also, if only users with accounts could edit the mainspace, vandals could simply create accounts to vandalize, which would hide their IP and allow them to sockpuppet. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I find IPs do a lot of good and only around 10% are vandals; most just pop in and edit little spelling mistakes or update some prices, which is really handy. It is also good for people to see that they can just pop in and edit almost every page on the wiki.--Richard 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Extremely Strong Oppose How could you even propose this?! 20:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It wasn't hard. I clicked "Yew Grove", clicked the "+" sign, typed what I typed, and hit "Save page". Planeshifted 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • And shouldn't it be that easy for everyone? Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 20:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Come to think of it, when I posted the downloads topics I got many errors :P. But that was when the servers were down. 22:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have given thought to this, and I can see why you would think this might be a good idea. I have been to quite a lot of site with things like "click here to leave a comment / write a review / start a thread / post a reply / etc." When I do, I just get a login box saying I have to log in or create an account - username, email address, password, etc. I very rarely bother, and just go on to another site without contributing. A wiki should be set apart from all of those by its defining feature, which is the fact that anyone can edit. If you take this away, it would feel like a closed-off clique of users, and new contributors would be greatly discouraged from bothering. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • File:Ultimate strength.gif Oppose - Words cannot describe how strongly I oppose this. According to Oxford English Dictionary, "A wiki is a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language." Your proposal would go against this definition. Liferune.pngbufar(talk)Death rune.png 21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The spirit of the wiki is to allow anyone to edit, even without creating an account. Otherwise, we would just be another boring fansite (by the way, this idea was suggested before, and pretty much everyone opposed; see RuneScape:Yew_Grove/Archive2#"...that anyone can edit"). Butterman62 (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per InstantWinston. Derilith 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Per Richard, Bufar, and Butterman. Most IPs make very useful edits! Like Bufar said, it would not be a wiki if IPs couldn't post, and we would have to take off the tagline "...that anyone can edit!" White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone -- and Lol at Bufar's position. May be coloured blue in the near
  • Oppose - Per Earth. See here. The ability to be edited by the public is what separates this Wiki from normal fansites. Think about it - what would this say to our readers? "You're not allowed to edit this page because we don't trust you". It's that loyalty and responsibility that sets up apart from sites such as Zybez and RuneHQ. Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 06:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Super-strong Oppose - Per everybody who opposed this proposal. All points have already been mentioned, and I would only be repeating what everyone (who opposed) had said.   az talk   07:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, who wants to burn me at the stake for daring to bring this up? We can start a new vote on my talk page or something. Planeshifted 06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Lol. It is OK. It is good to bring up ideas. It gives it a chance even if it is not such the best idea. But thankyou. Chicken7 >talk 06:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I realise what you are talking about but anonymous users make over half the edits to the wiki; we just don't notice. Chicken7 >talk 06:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Vehemently and Completely Oppose - I started out editing anonymously on this particular wiki, and by allowing anonymous edits, it simply lowers the requirements to get started. The #1 feature that has allowed explosive growth in terms of numbers of participants is how simple it is to get started to edit a wiki without an extensive registration process. There are a great many reasons that a user may want to explicitly edit anonymously, and I am supportive of nearly every one of them. Furthermore, I'm not even sure if we could even be allowed to continue on Wikia if we were to eliminate anon edits as a community. This seems as foundational of an issue as the GFDL license that all of the content is organized under. --Robert Horning 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)