Electowiki talk:Editorial policy: Difference between revisions
Respond to User:RobLa
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (Respond to User:RobLa) |
|||
Line 25:
: Ok, in Wikipedia terminology "anonymous" and "pseudonymous" are different things. Anonymous editors are the ones who post under IPs only, and pseudonymous ones post under an account without revealing their real name. Obviously I am 100% in favor of pseudonymous editing, and anonymous editing hasn't been a problem at all so far. It is few and far between, and seems mostly from people editing while accidentally logged out. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 00:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Just to add a bit of nuance, perhaps any restrictions on pseudonymous editors should focus on those who make many edits. It doesn't seem like we ought to restrict someone who makes an account to primarily edit or create a handful of articles. In addition, there could be some priority order to the articles such that greater restrictions are placed on someone editing something like the [[majority criterion]] versus some page that they themselves created, like [[Ideal Representation]]. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 00:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
''I'm always skeptical of people who hide behind pseudoanonymous identities. ''
: Are you worried about something in particular? Some ill intentions?
''Checking the validity of anonymously-contributed content is exhausting. It is not what I want to be doing with my life right now. ''
: Yes, I've been trying to [[mw:Help:Patrolled edits|patrol]] Recent Changes, but I also don't have time to keep up with [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy]]'s enthusiasm. :) It's true that someone with a lot of energy can completely dominate the wiki, and that could be bad if they didn't share our "neutral" point of view, but 1. there are ways to rein them in if necessary, and 2. I haven't seen any major problems with this here yet, so I'm only very slightly worried about it... They've been good about [[User_talk:Psephomancy|asking me for advice before starting new articles that might be out of scope]], for instance. (Though I would prefer that those kinds of discussions be in [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus|a more public place]] where everyone can give feedback, not just me.)
: I think recruiting more editors would help spread out the work, and make sure there are more than one viewpoint being represented, and was actually looking into that yesterday.
: The fact that they post under a pseudonym seems like a red herring to me. You know my real name, does that make my edits any more or less legitimate? I can make mistakes like everyone else, which is why other users can freely correct them. A real name account wouldn't make me any more or less likely to dominate the wiki through prolific editing, either.
''Whenever an anonmyous suggests allowing content on this wiki in languages that I don't understand, after having their content deleted in at least one case,''
: I don't know what this is in reference to?
''"Investigate what it would take to deploy wikipedia:Flagged Revisions to Electowiki"''
: I haven't seen anything that needs that drastic of a fix, and that would be a lot of work to patrol. If we don't have time to patrol recent changes, wouldn't Flagged Revisions essentially stall the wiki altogether?
''but I want to start with asking an open-ended question: what is your position on this?''
: On pseudonymous editing, I'm totally in favor of it. Whether I'm interacting with a real name, a pseudonym, or an IP makes no difference to the credibility of what they post. I am used to all of the above from editing Wikipedia since 2003, where it's the norm and works fine.
''but RobLa-POV and C4ES-POV are slightly different points of view. ''
: Yeah, as I said by email, I donate to and support CES, but they're an advocacy organization, and I don't think it would be a good fit to have an ostensibly neutral resource hosted by an organization that advocates for one reform in particular. I'm not really sure what the benefit would be for them, either? We're in the same space and can complement each other's work; I'm not sure why a closer relationship would benefit either of us.
''With all of the anonymous editing is starting to move away from that.''
: Again, is there something in particular that's going badly that I've missed? I understand the threat of someone with a lot of energy overwhelming our ability to fact-check, but do you think that threat is actually happening?
'' The discussion over on Talk:C4ES Election-Theory Forum is really driving that point home.''
: That discussion certainly confuses me, but I don't see what connection it has with anonymous or pseudonymous editing.
''I think the first step is for the EPOV editorial board to come up with a policy about anonymous editing. Thoughts on how the EPOV editorial board will define the policy on anonymous editing?''
: Unless you have evidence of some problem it's creating, I think it should be the same as Wikipedia's: Contributors are welcome to post under a real name, pseudonym, or IP. It makes very little difference. The only problem is if someone starts being disruptive from multiple IPs after being blocked, but I haven't seen anywhere near that level of problem here, and I doubt a wiki about social choice theory is ever going to inspire the same level of passion as, say [[w:Donald Trump]].
: I would think anonymous editing would be even ''less'' of a problem here than it is there, in other words. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 01:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
| |||