This Forum has been archivedVisit the new Forums
Since we turned on anonymous editing, vandalism has increases dramatically, but quality edits by anons have been low. Is it still worth keeping anonymous access?
- I have noticed a couple of helpful edits by anons, but perhaps 1/10. Myself and the patrollers seem to be on top of it, so it is hard to say. Perhaps we could implement additional restrictions on what pages anons can edit? Macrophager (talk) 19:16, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
-  I think that it just depends, like I've not looked at the stats and not sure of the exact history on this wiki, or the load difference on any one person to fix/monitor relative to the time they spend moderating here, and how much it holds back sustaining or progressing. However I think that, regardless of any propensity for the target or usual crowd that would come here to vandalize, be mindless or counter productive, in the long term the positive residual effects are a key part of the formula to sustainability. I think that, if pondered enough and given enough time, would eventually arrive at the same core plan as Wikipedia and for the same reasons. In something like, or close to, a "last man standing" scenario as far a moderators and/or "patrollers", it might be good to lean on flipping the switch back and forth, because you are already past that point. I think, along with a few other things getting better if might help to keep it on until then, to help get to a better place. All that being said, again I don't know the actual daily burden. Celess (talk) 17:32, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I feel that the number of helpful edits is low, but perhaps more than 1 in 10. I feel that having anonymous access is a good way to pull people into the community - many people won't create an account for their first small edit. WowWiki will need more editors to stay up-to-date and so on the whole we can't afford to discourage anyone. There is vandalism but it seems mostly to be in short bursts at weekends, and doesn't take too long to put right. My suggestion, (which may not be practical) for controlling this would be allowing mods and patrollers to issue a 1 or 12 hour cooldown to specific users or IPs. Alternatively, perhaps cap anonymous users to editing at most 2 different pages per day? Sasyn (talk) 19:56, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
- See this. On the 6 month blocks and such. If we are going to do the 'anonymous' thing, should probably do the whole upscale model for it to work. Generally blocks on such well known and high traffic sites should be more like a few hours, days, or a week or two. There are several reasons for this, but also Wikipedia policy and guidance is that way as well (knowing that this isn't Wikipedia and different). There is the whole IP addresses are often shared, cafes, schools, proxies, other contries and poor regions, yadda yadda..., easy to circumvent, yadda yadda... More importantly the usual thing is that you have to assume good will, even if your normal human instinct is contrare, and even in the most obvious case, baring illegal activity, let it happen again. This is the usual and whole idea. Another part of the rationale is that that over time the set of people and circumstances end up excluding too large a set of opportunity. Celess (talk) 21:05, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
- So far the main arguments in favor of anonymous access appear to be: Anonymous access should increase the number of registered users and active quality editors over having it turned off. If this can be proven in some way, I'm fine with anonymous access. I will ask Raylan to see if the Wikia overlords can find out. -- (talk · contr) 20 Oct 2013 2:56 PM Pacific
- On the technical pages I'm getting decent unregistered updates and at a decent ratio. Factual, wiki markup and such. Sometimes no one wants to go dig out password to fix a spot issue, if I were to imagine. Login system messes up pretty badly for some. Though its probably less fun to joke edit a Lua page ;) Celess (talk) 23:07, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
- For the record I belive that breeding trafic -> edits -> eventualy takes he burden off individual heroics and back to them. Is why im working hard to pull thorns in other areas. No one should have to bear the weight of nearly *all* of hte core updates for aynything, or the policing. :) Celess (talk) 23:12, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of the various trends/numbers sources I've got on hand, keep in mind the following - that WoWWiki doesn't exist inside a bubble, meaning that numbers are often influenced by other game releases, in-game holidays, etc. That being said, the numbers are surprisingly more on the positive side. Page views, etc. daily and weekly reflect a small bump, though monthly average is still ho-hum. Stats show that there are more edits being made - though it is hard to tease out productive vs vandals... we'd need to rely on our personal experience for that (I'll give mine later). WAM score, reflecting the health of the wiki in general, shows a massive bump. Just prior to enabling anon editing we were sitting in the mid-forties, so still within the top 50 gaming wikis; today I checked, and we're in the upper twenties.
- Taking Hallow's End into consideration and also looking at competing sites, it seems that the in-game holiday alone cannot fully explain traffic/editing. So taking all things together, the TLDR takeaway is that traffic and editing has increased at least nominally in most cases, better in others, and has resulted in a "healthier" wiki, at least by WAM measure.
- My personal experience with patrolling has been to focus more on the IP being helpful/not helpful rather than the number of helpful/not helpful edits overall; this is because one IP vandal can and typically does make a string of malicious edits all at once. This skews any measure if just looking at edits overall. In looking at IP helpful/not helpful, it seems that during the week the number of helpful IPs (even if only minor grammar corrections) is greater than the number of vandals. During the weekends this is a different issue, of course.
- If anon editing is continued, it's probably best to keep it on rather than going back and forth. This is so visitors know what to expect. It might also be helpful to tweak the vandalism rules as well, since those are tailored to registered accounts. I've got some suggestions, but will hold off on them for now. Raylan13 (talk) 18:57, October 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Good and thorough feedback. I think this means thumbs up for anon access. I will say when a single anon account does several malicious edits each should count against any positive edits because it still takes work to fix them and potentially ban the IP. Also, not all "positive" edits are truly positive, ut more well-intentioned, since it is also work to fix many of those well-intentioned, but definitely need-to-be-fixed edits as well.
- I never directly suggested turning anon access off, but I do think it needed to be evaluated.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.