Wikipedia talk:The benefits of requiring account creation on Wikipedia

April 2008

I think in order to get this point there are two simple questions that have to be answered. First, does requiring an account violate Wikipedia's fundamental principles? If the answer is yes, then end of discussion. Secondly, if it is found not to go against those principles, we have to ask whether the beneficial edits from IPs are worth dealing with all the vandalism of IPs. I understand the points about accountability and privacy, but I think for 90% of Wikipedians it's this question between benefits and vandalism that has to be decided. We've already decided that the benefits of new page creation by IPs was not worth the vandalism. To add my own 2 cents, I think the answer to question #1 is a likely "no", because seeing that edit button at the top of each page is such an ingrained part of this project. We can certainly experiment with levels of protection, stable versions, etc, but I don't think consensus on the ability of IPs to edit will move substantially in the near-term. Joshdboz (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A great bit of input that was. Keep it coming.--Urban Rose 22:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on this, I'd say that it does. But this opens up a whole new can of worms and raises questions as to whether page protection and requiring registration to create pages are appropriate as well that I'd rather not further confuse myself with for now.--Urban Rose 04:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Presumably you're aware of the current proposal for tagged revisions which is in operation at the de:Wiki; I haven't looked at it in detail but since IP addresses can change so rapidly, it would not seem to make sense for anon IP editors to be able to produce tagged revisions. That situation would reduce a lot of at least visible vandalism, but the downside is that it would downgrade worthy edits by anon IPs until their edits were ratified in some way by a "Trusted" editor. Again, unfortunately, it is difficult to work out a system whereby someone would be considered trustworthy enough that their edits are tagged, but without gaming the system to achieve that status. It's a difficult balancing act, and already this year we have seen an Admin kicked off the project for sockpuppetry, and others leave for extraneous reasons. As I see it, trust is a fragile concept here, and at present, beyond your proposals to require validation by a permanent email address, I don't see a solution. --Rodhullandemu 01:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that vandalism is such a big issue as there will always be people who enjoy reverting other people's vandalism. (patrollers or rollbackers)--Bizso (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this being considered?

We just had an anonymous editor come in and make changes to about 30 Star Trek articles that all had to be reverted. Let's say a first time user comes to wikipedia and decides to make an edit, would it be so horrible for a pop-up asking them to create an account to show up before allowing the edit? I don't think so. I don't know how many forums I am on for work that mandate an account before you are allowed to post. Sure, some of it is for marketing purposes, but the majority of it is to prevent vandalism. How do we get this up for a vote on wikipedia? StarHOG (Talk) 14:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)