Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow IP editors to create articles

< Wikipedia:Wiki Guides
 Project page Real time tracking Resources for Guides Email templates Guides (members) Resources for New Users "When I first joined..." 
 Home Project Talk page RfC on socializing RfC on CSD to userpage drafts Minimizing talk page templates New Pages RfC on new editors creating pages 
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{rfctag|policy}} In order to increase participation, IP editors should be allowed to create articles once again.

This is part of a series of RfCs that came about early during the Wiki guides project. The objective is to generate new active contributors to help fulfill the Wikimedia Foundation's goal of increased participation. A recent update from the Wikimedia Foundation is helpful in understanding the need for new users. - Hydroxonium (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary edit

Wikipedia should change its current policy and allow IP editors (i.e. unregistered users) to create articles once again.

This restriction was going to be lifted in 2007 but was stopped because of the possibility of problems. The fact is that nobody will know what happens until the restriction is lifted. The restriction can always be put back if there actually is a problem. Please see the talk page for related information and previous discussions.

View from User:TomStar81 edit

Being that its my idea, I'll be the first to submit that its time we let the anonymous isp editors back into the creation fold. I whole heartedly support this for a number of different reasons, among these that the anti-vandalism measures we have (filters, bots, etc) have grown in the years since the isp editors we banned, that we have more admins to deal with the article that will need to be deleted when they are allowed to edit again, and that the majority of people do not like being forced to register to create articles here, and that the number of admins we have has increased since the anons were banned. If we truly believe in our guidelines and policies - in BOLD, in IAR, in AGF, and the pursuit of the sum on all human knowledge to be made available to the world, then we must accept that the indisputable fact that we must adjust ourselves, our attitudes, and our philosophies to appeal to the people. Consider the latin phrase "E Plurbis Unum" - "Out of Many, One". Many our the ways that those on the net come here, but they come with one goal in mind: editing. Are we to force them to edit to our standards? Is this the gated community that we have become? A house divided against itself can not stand. I said this once before on a matter similar to this, but now I think you can all see exactly what I mean. We are divided against our own foundation, against the people we need to gain and retain to grow and expand. The time has come to restore the creation rights to isp editors, and return to our roots. To do anything less in this hour of our need is to sign our own death warrants, for will suffocate what little life we still get from the outside editors. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:Yoenit edit

It is common knowledge that Wikipedia has become very newbie unfriendly. A small experiment showed some 80% of the pages created by new users are being deleted. Allowing IP editors to create articles will not change this. It will however cause an increase in vandalism articles, which will cause the already overworked NewPage patrollers to become even more wp:BITEY, making the atmosphere even more poisonous. Opening the gates now will therefore only drive even more users away from wikipedia. Perhaps we could reconsider this once we have a better system for guiding and teaching new editors, but until then I strongly oppose this idea. Also of interest is a discussion at the village pump where the opposite is discussed: allow only autoconfirmed users to create pages

Users who endorse this view
  1. Yoenit (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC) As a new page patroller myself, I can definitely attest to the fact that new users write the worst articles.[reply]
  3. My experiment also showed a similar result. Creating a passable article is simply too hard a task for the average new user, by encouraging them to do so, we're setting them up for failure. Mr.Z-man 16:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. New editors need more help and guidance, not more tools they don't know how to use. First Light (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Feezo (Talk) — To summarize the village pump proposal, requiring autoconfirmation would actually benefit good-faith contributors by reducing the likelihood that their articles are deleted. 23:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. We should go to autoconfirmed - this will counteract the newbie (and n00b) rush to create new, and consequently crappy, articles. MER-C 03:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very cool proposal...and I like the way you think (especially the let's try it and if it does cause problems change then). All that said, better to let people learn to fix existing articles before making new ones. I started with the "build it in mainspace attitude", but the reality of content creation has driven me much more to a view that one should know how to do a modicum of sourcing, categorizing, and bolding the first sentence, before making new articles. We need more of an apprenticeship model, that allows tailored and gradual contributions, that build learning along the way (and less cruft and pain and deletion debates).TCO (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. —innotata 19:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Absolutely right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Jayron32 05:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. It only takes a moment to register, and it doesn't even require an email address. If someone wishes to create a useful article that has some potential of meeting our inclusion and notability criteria, then they would be expected to make a little bit of an effort. Registering an account would be the easy part, and if they can't be bothered to do that, then the article itself would likely have so many gaps and problems it would require more time and effort putting it right than the IP saved us by starting it. We are not in desperate need of new articles - we need first to clean up the ones that were created in the early days of Wikipedia when we allowed a lot of shit to be slung on the wall. SilkTork *YES! 16:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Well said. Let's be realistic. Is an IP going to create an article that is acceptable to the Wikipedia community? Then the IP is going to have an even worse experience than the new editor. Not to mention how IP's who create inappropriate articles (including vandalism) will exhaust the community. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Spot on.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Pretending that anyone off the street can start a new article is most unhelpful: it would frustrate 95% of those who try to start an article because the result will not be suitable for Wikipedia, and their work will be deleted, and they will feel that they wear a badge of shame. Further, the workload for wikignomes would go through the roof and their number would decline. Forcing unconfirmed editors to use WP:AFC would be much better (although AFC would need some help). Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Absolutely! There are already about 3-4 new pages per minute on average. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Pol430 talk to me 14:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Once we have stronger results from Wiki Guides, then we can maybe start to loosen up on this. Sumsum2010·T·C 16:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Allowing IP editors to create pages will, as Yoenit says, only make the Wikipedia community more unwelcoming to new users. The autoconfirmed idea is not a bad one. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 23:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Increasig the "page creation" level to autoconfirmed is a bit problematic due to the fact that the user should be allowed to start off with his/her userspace, but otherwise I agree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears page creation can be set per namespace, so this is not an issue. IP's can for example already make talkpages. Yoenit (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:Strange Passerby edit

The BLP issue has not gone away sufficiently for Wikipedia to reopen creation of articles to anon editors. WP:AFC exists and full use should be made of it by these willing editors. Nothing is actually stopping them from creating articles, as such. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC) I agree completely, AFC exists for a reason.[reply]
  3. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First Light (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Perhaps we should publicize AFC more. MER-C 03:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yep.  狐 FOX  21:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. True. SilkTork *YES! 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be useful to have a link to AFC for IP accounts who put in a search for an article we don't have. SilkTork *YES! 16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:RadManCF edit

We have AFC available for IP users who want to submit articles, and the article incubator for improving poorly written articles. However, I don't think that new users are as aware of these as they could be. As Yoenit points out, allowing IP editors to create articles would increase the workload on new page patrollers, and possibly lead them to be more bitey. I would argue that the best way to make the article creation process more friendly to new users would be to require them to go through AFC for their first few articles. This would increase the workload at AFC, but would likely decrease the amount of effort necessary at CSD, AfD, etc. Furthermore, I would argue that article creation should not be the first task attempted by a new user. Contributing to established articles is, IMO, much easier, and less likely to end in grief for a new user. Finally, I think that some of the problems with the dauntingness of the article creation process are beyond our control. Many people still think that since this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that anyone can contribute anything about anything, regardless of quality. Such people come here, create an unreferenced article about their garage band, a high school quarterback, or that thing they made up in school one day, and are put off when their contributions are deleted, reverted etc. In short, the public has a perception of wikipedia based on the early days, that persists, despite massive changes on our part.

Users who endorse this view
  1. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Especially agree that it's better for new users to contribute to existing articles first. Mr.Z-man 19:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First Light (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nicely worded. Yoenit (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Feezo (Talk) 23:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agreed. I don't know why WP is so focused on article creation. MER-C 02:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It should also be said that part of the community hangs on to the belief that you aren't a real Wikipedian until you've made several new articles, which is something we need to move away from. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't think we are missing any vital articles. New article creation is not a priority. Cleaning up some of the poor quality articles that were created during the early days of Wikipedia is more important. We have some old articles that are poorly sourced, poorly written, inaccurate and opinionated. The driving culture on Wikipedia is still to create new, expand and move forward. But at our stage we need to focus on cleaning up, consolidating and improving. For that we actually need experienced and committed users. I think we need fewer uncommitted and inexperienced editors making work for the rest of us. Let us welcome those who are prepared to get stuck in, learn the ropes and do the work. Let us gently discourage those who simply want to create badly written articles about their company and then move on. We are not Yellow Pages. SilkTork *YES! 16:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. As much as possible, we should direct new editors to activities where they can slowly get accustomed to editing. Creating a new article is not an easy task. Encourage to create something in their user space for review by someone else. But really, so they don't waste their time, get them used to what a good article might look like by improving an existing article. If that means we have to restrict new article creation until you've made 10 edits, we should consider it. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I made a comment above with a similar sentiment. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View of Fetchcomms edit

We should require all new users and IPs to create articles through Articles for Creation (AfC). If more experienced users would participate in reviewing submissions at AfC, this would work excellently. We can quickly deal with problematic articles, give users a way to improve unsourced articles (instead of straight-up deleting them via CSD, AfC works like userspace and there are no "hurry or it'll be deleted!" concerns), and provide non-BITEy advice that can help a new user become an experienced Wikipedian. This happens all the time in AfC and we should make it mandatory.

Letting IPs create articles is even more problematic than any new user in that we will be unable to cope with the amount of crap that comes through and even more acceptable articles will be mis-tagged for CSD. We also add to a growing backlog of cleanup/etc. issues that few work to reduce. New page patrollers are already dying. Let's not make this situation worse by inviting a multitude of uninformed (but well-intentioned) users to increase our workload.

Users who endorse this view
  1. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. move article creation to autoconfirmed? sounds like a plan. Yoenit (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Feezo (Talk) 23:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agreed. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. MER-C 03:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First Light (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   -- Lear's Fool 11:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strongly Agree - this view is close enough to my own, that I don't need to create another section. Please see what I wrote in WT:AFC/2010#Why does this process exist? - don't be mislead by the heading - and this part in Signpost. I won't repeat them to avoid tl;dr, but please do consider the views there - summary: the current system is very harsh on new users, and by forcing them through AFC, we'd make it more friendly, not less. We need to welcome and assist new editors, which is more effective if they take the 20 seconds to create an account.  Chzz  ►  07:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree. No article is so urgent that it needs to go live immediately. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:Mono edit

No.

Users who endorse this view
  1. Mono (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It would be stupefying that someone adds spam/nonsense in open defiance of WP's encyclopedic nature, except that it happens all the time. MER-C 02:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   -- Lear's Fool 11:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - I don't have the slightest idea why anonymous edits are allowed at all. I just had to waste some of my time today cleaning up some IP idiot's two-year old vandalism... Letting IPs start articles would be a vandalism nightmare and would swamp new page patrollers. Horrible idea.[reply]
  8. I do understand why we allow IPs to edit. I do not understand why we would allow IPs to create articles. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:The Blade of the Northern Lights edit

As much as I wish this was feasible, it is the absolute last thing we New Page Patrollers need. We're already being severely overworked right now; two users (Kamkek and myself) patrolled over 7,000 pages in the month of February alone. This doesn't mean we don't enjoy it, but we're still being pushed to the limits. There are so few people willing to do NPP that I frequently find myself taking on 250-350 pages a day. Allowing IPs to create articles again will certainly result in some good new pages, but will result in far more spam and outright attacks, which will make it even more difficult to get anyone willing to do NPP, which becomes a vicious cycle. While I appreciate the intent, as one of the few people actually doing NPP I can say that it will break our backs. I fully support raising the bar to autoconfirmed; that way, new users will have to work on existing articles to start off, which will give them a better feel for what an article should look like so they're better prepared to make their own articles, and those of us on NPP will have an enormous load taken off our backs; it won't disappear entirely, but it'll definitely make everyone's work that much easier.

Users who endorse this view
  1. The Blade of the Northern Lights 18:50, 13 March 2011
  2. Feezo (Talk) 21:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   -- Lear's Fool 16:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support raising the bar to autoconfirmed users with at least X mainspace editsnot lowering it. Try posting something to facebook/twitter/most forums/news sites... generally you have to register first. People shouldn't be surprised/scared to do so here - especially for creation, not just editting.The-Pope (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This view, and several of those with similar sentiments above, are obvious to anyone who has spent some time looking at typical contributions from new users. I frequent some articles where IP editors actually make very useful contributions, and I strongly support the right of an IP editor to remain unregistered. But pretending we can open the floodgates for new pages is a delusion. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. MER-C 12:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I support this, but I'm not sure even this is enough. Patrolling some pages is harder than others. Johnny schoolkid's page, first edit, first creation and a title of "Miss Teaccher suckkz" is easy to patrol. COI-issues from a low-mileage but not brand new user are much harder. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:Eloquence edit

The current article creation funnel is inconsistent and confusing, because the user experience is very different depending on how or where you enter it. You might end up on the six-step wizard, or you might end up on a textarea that's ready to write in. How and why you get there isn't clear.

We need a friendly and simple "We don't yet have an article about X. Would you like to write one?" page that's consistent for IP addresses and registered users who are still very new. You'd be directed to that page from red links, from search results or from other relevant pages. The page would have three big, friendly buttons:

  1. Never mind
    Take me back to where I came from.
  2. I'm ready to write and publish, right now
    Please note that Wikipedia has high standards of quality, and your content is likely to be deleted if you're new and haven't read Wikipedia:Your first article and related pages yet.
  3. Launch the Article Wizard
    This is a six-step process to help you determine if an article is warranted, and to help you write it. You can request community review before publishing it.

That's it. No additional caveats and a minimum of additional text. Just three simple, clearly explained paths to choose from. Paths designed for the three most likely use cases: 1) The confused reader, 2) The bold "Let me at it already" new user, 3) The cautious new user who wants to get it right. And the likelihood of bitey behavior should be more consistent with people's willingness to accept it.

Once we have this process standardized, we can point users in funnel 2 either to a simple You're not logged in - make a new account before you start writing page, or we can re-enable IP editing. By first standardizing the funnel we should see a significant uptick in number of users who make accounts, and that would also allow us to see if we see an unacceptable uptick in noise. If we don't, we can try re-enabling IP editing, but with essentially the same page, except the account creation requirement would be dropped for the second path.

This suggestion may require some MediaWiki-level code changes to consistently generate the above page and make it easy to use, but I strongly suspect that this is worth the effort.

Users who endorse this view:

  1. Eloquence* 03:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Great idea. This seems like the easiest change to implement, and wouldn't require any change of policy. The enabling of IP editing would presumably require a completely separate discussion and consensus, which is why I strongly support this first step. First Light (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Given the vital importance of new editor retention to the health of the project and the vast resources available to the WMF we are long past the point of having excuses for not implementing a user friendly creation interface such as this. Commendations to Eloquence for the succinctness of the proposal. Skomorokh 16:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, with one additional point: user needs to search for similar material first. WMF should redirect funding away from feel-good committees and towards development of a proper interface which does not lead new users to a near-certain failure with consequent distress. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The interface improvements are definitely worth considering. What I don't agree with is re-enabling IP editing, this is akin to sticking one's finger in an electric shredder (MZMcBride, from the last RFC on this issue). Also, searching for existing articles is a must. MER-C 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I definitely like the suggestions here for new users, although I do not endorse the allowance of IP editing. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:Jayron32 edit

What Wikipedia needs more than new articles is improvement of existing articles. There's millions of articles which could use expansion and improvement, and comparatively few notable topics left which do not yet have any article, but which deserve some. New articles from brand-spanking-new users are almost invariably promotional in nature and inappropriate to Wikipedia. We should discourage the use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion, while we should also encourage new users to get involved in good work that really needs to be done. Article creation is one of the hardest things to do right at Wikipedia, and we should be asking for a higher threshold for doing so, not a lower one. New users who wish to contribute should be directed instead to work in other areas of Wikipedia to learn it better before creating new articles. New users are VERY MUCH needed in improving and expanding Wikipedia, but article creation is not the only vehicle for that, and new users should be directed away from article creation until they understand better what a good subject for a Wikipedia article is.

Users who endorse this view:

  1. as writer. --Jayron32 06:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've been saying this all the way through as I've been working my way down, and I'm pleased that somebody has made the point. We are in a different phase of the development of Wikipedia. This phase is somewhat more demanding than the early expansion phase and needs people to pay attention, learn appropriate methods and structure, and to be prepared to stick around and build quality. Wikipedia is improving. It's much better now than it was a few years ago, and that is down to the patient, hardworking Wikipedians who can work within our more demanding structure. We don't need more opinionated hotheads, vandals, or well intentioned drive-by editors who dump something they think they know about in an article and move on leaving others to research what they added, discover it is wrong and remove it. Let's continue working on the quality. The sort of editors we need now are not casual IP editors, but people who are prepared to commit and do a proper job. At one time IP editors were the back bone of Wikipedia, today they are the back ache. SilkTork *YES! 17:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per both Jayron32 and SilkTork, these comments are very apt, not only for the present discussion, but for Wikipedia as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. It would be better to direct them to activities where they are useful, and more importantly FEEL useful. Article creation is difficult and if that's your first experience on Wikipedia it's likely to be a bad one. We should restrict new editors from walking into the fire. When they try to create a new article, show them some relevant search terms and encourage them to expand those articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. MER-C 13:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mr.Z-man 04:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, and again this view is obvious to anyone who spends time with typical articles and new users. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:Ironholds edit

Wikipedia is an open-source, free, reliable encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, subject to US law. That is our mission-statement. We don't take every clause to its logical conclusion, however - sometimes restrictions on one of those elements are necessary. When restrictions are suggested, a Lockean balance-of-rights approach should be taken; the restriction must be:

  • Necessary to uphold another clause of the statement, and;
  • The smallest possible restriction needed to maintain the whole statement.

Is restricting the right of IPs to create articles necessary? Yes. It's not about proportion - I haven't looked into it in detail, but despite the Chicken Licken-esque "the sky is falling" approach at Special:RecentChanges, I doubt >50 percent of IP edits are vandalism - it's about capacity. Special:NewPages is just about being kept at an even keel right now, just. Adding in a load of IP-created pages would ensure that, human error aside, vandalism-filled or dangerous pages inevitably make it through the gauntlet, denting Wikipedia's credibility yet again. To maintain the "reliable encyclopaedia" element, restraining IPs is necessary.

Is restricting the right of IPs the smallest possible restriction? Well, no, but it's the smallest possible objective restriction - there are alternatives, but not alternatives which would not create additional workloads, defeating the point completely. Allowing IP editors to create pages may help deal with the dearth of new users, but given the treatment new users seem to be getting at Special:NewPages already, they won't necessarily want to stick around, even without the stress and resulting biteiness that opening the floodgates would force New Page Patrollers to approach user contact with.

At the end of the day, we have to weigh up both "what will attract new users" and "what will keep veterans here" when making alterations in the pursuit of increasing user contributions. There is no indication that opening the floodgates would provide enough good content to compensate for the bad, and to compensate for the increasing workload of experienced editors. There is no indication that opening the floodgates would provide enough new users to compensate for the old ones leaving, and being burnt out by the process of trying to oversee what has suddenly become a Herculean task - patrolling new pages. That being said, it is right that we revisit this question, and that we revisit it often. Those users who signed up to Mono's simple "No." statement are forgetting that just because the "reliable encyclopaedia" element occasionally necessitates the derogation of the "anyone can edit" bit doesn't mean that it's no longer a consideration. Matter of fact, I thought that confronting the difficulty of editing was why we were here.

  1. Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


View from User:Peterstrempel edit

Statement of philosophical conflict: I have deep reservations about the notion of any human being hiding behind an alias in any public endeavour. An alias begs questions about integrity, accountability, and credibility.

Pseudonyms may be acceptable in literature, but why for the encyclopaedic endeavour? If you don't care to stand by what you say and do (admins take note), why should I trust you? How will I know that user xyz today isn't also user abc and def and ghi today and tomorrow? Why should I take someone else's word for that (ie, admins chasing down sockpuppets), particularly if they too hide behind aliases?

If, on top of that, you refuse to even create an account, alias or not, that doubles my suspicion. This is particularly the case in an era when sovereign states have either directly, or by condoning such actions, launched attacks on online information sources. I am thinking particularly about the 2009 hacking of an Australian website promoting a documentary about Uighur spokeswoman Rebyiah Kadeer - see [[1]], traced to Chinese IPs. Knowing, as I do, just how tightly controlled internet access and usage is in the People's Republic, any denial of Chinese state involvement in that attack rings hollow. But we could never say that, could we, because all we had was IP addresses!

I vote No. No. No.

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  12:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:Pol430 edit

Require all new users to create articles via articles for creation. Continue to prevent annon editors from creating pages due to concerns about dynamic IP's, vandalism, and COI not being evident. Allow direct page creations by Autoconfirmed and Confirmed users only. Increase the requirements for Autoconfirmed status, they are currently too low—but that's a subject for another RfC.

Some stats for you: There are currently 4,177 (at the time of posting) new unreviewed articles in Category:Unreviewed new articles and its sub-categories; these articles go back to Jan 2010. In the past few weeks I have been doing what little I can to clear some of the backlog there. I have found historic articles, that I had cause to tag for CSD and most were deleted. It seems we need to tighten our procedures for checking the quality of new pages not open the doors to more, potentially harmful, pages. Pol430 talk to me 15:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view:

  1. Pol430 talk to me 15:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:WereSpielChequers edit

Newpage patrol is a timeconsuming trainwreck and simply allowing IP editors to create articles without requiring a source would only make it worse. Tightening the rules to only allow autoconfirmed editors to create articles would reduce the workload for newpage patrollers, but at the price of making us less open. Changing the article creation process so that the new articles require a source would send out a very different message - "Wikipedia requires sources" not "Wikipedia raises drawbridge". I understand DE wiki has something like this already in place. I envisage a new article creation screen that includes a box for people to put their reference into, and a bit of software behind this that can spot and reject facebook and myspace "references", and perhaps even copyvio. If we can get it working well we could perhaps reopen article creation for IP editors. ϢereSpielChequers 22:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view:

  1. ϢereSpielChequers 22:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Certainly worth exploring. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This and raising it to autoconfirmed don't have to be mutually exclusive, at least in the beginning for a little while to gauge its effectiveness; we can begin lowering the bar from there. It's just a matter of having the technical part down; if it can't be done immediately, raising it to autoconfirmed until then would at least stick a finger in the dike before the welders can work their magic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Like an automated AfC, but faster and a tad less stringent. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:Od Mishehu edit

This sounds like a good idea ion theory, but a bad idea in practice. While it is BITEy to not have anons be able to create new articles, it's worse to have hem create the articles just to have them deleeted soon afterwards.

Users who endorse this view
  1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View from User:Andy Dingley edit

Strongest possible opposition to this. I don't see page creation as necessary, I certainly see it as harmful for increasing the rubbish-flow at NPP. I would question the basis for even considering this.

What is IP editor access for? There is a general description of them as "anon IP", yet this is quite false. An IP is much less anonymous than a registered account, as it's one of the few places on wiki where real identifying information is exposed. If an editor wants anonymity in some "wikileaks" context, they can register an account as "user:Assange's Little Helper" or somesuch. This is anyway something for which we have almost no valid use, owing to our parallel demand for backup frrom WP:RS.

There is a very minor convenience aspect to allowing IP editing. Yet we still impose the requirements for learning the basics of wikicode, and the beginnings of policy. When I'm happy to register on-line (probably with an address too) to buy a T shirt or sign up to an email list, it's hardly onerous or unfamiliar to have to do this for WP access too. Registering accounts is now an everyday task. If there is a barrier to editor entry, it's the culture and policies that are this barrier more than driving the editor, and certainly much more than picking a name for an account.

I would also question why "drive-by editors" need to create pages anyway. There are increasingly few pages that are still missing, needed, not just duplication of a news item, and can usefully be created without the sort of sizable effort that depends on an editor with some experience behind them. I would push page creation the other way in fact - no one needs to create pages, or is in a position to create an effective page, until they have a few edits behind them.

Page creation is a serious step. Not all new editors will be up to the task. It's already very accessible to relatively new editors with the slightest track record of experience. Tools like AFC make this even more accessible. Giving the same easy access for schoolkids to write "poo" across existing articles to instead create new pages is just opening up even more vandalism, even more workload on NPP, and not delivering a feature of any real value to anyone who really needs it.

Users who endorse this view
  1. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wiki_Guides/Allow_IP_editors_to_create_articles&oldid=1138287073"