Wikipedia talk:Editors should be logged-in users (failed proposal)

Below are arguments for and against requiring Wikipedia editors to be logged-in users.

The arguments for

I honestly do think that editors should be logged in users. It'd be sure to help a lot with people ignoring WP:ATT.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. The arguments against don't seem to make much sense. One argument is that it would violate Wikipedia policy that "anyone can edit." Yet it doesn't violate that policy as long as anyone can make an account. Another argument against is that the majority of IP edits are constructive, but that is hardly the point--I have a hard time believing that those interested in making constructive edits would be deterred from this by having to spend ten seconds making an account and then logging in. On the other hand (and contradictorily) it is also argued that such a rule would not deter vandalism because the vandals would just get accounts! I know there are some very determined vandals who would simply get accounts, but even in those cases it would make them easier to track. But I suspect the majority of vandalism doesn't come from determined vandals but from 'drive-by' vandals who simply notice the 'edit' button on top of the page and vandalize on the spur of the moment. It seems obvious to me that requiring users to spend the ten seconds to create an account would deter that type of vandalism while I highly doubt it would deter serious users who want to contribute.

Besides vandalism, another problem with some IP users is those who are regular long-term contributors and still refuse to get accounts. Since IP addresses change periodically this allows a form of sockpuppetry that can't really be accused of sockpuppetry. The contributions of such users can't easily be tracked and some of them use this to their advantage to appear to be more than one person, or to conceal their edit history.

All in all I think requiring editors to spend the ten seconds necessary to choose a username and password would be all positive and zero negative. Mystylplx (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when I started editing Wikipedia it took me about 3 months to decide to create an account, as I mainly just fixed spelling etc. and thought it would be a waste. --User J. Dalek (talk | contribs) 02:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments against

Probably most 'named Wikipedia editors' started off as IPs 'seeing how the thing worked' - and many probably make the occasional minor changes and improvements without signing in.

We can all think of reasons why we might wish to be effectively anonymous for particular entries.

Blocking unlogged in editors is likely to lead to 'a multitude of single entry user names' and/or people not contributing at all.

There is, however, a case for 'certain particular pages about topics which generate much discussion and edit wars etc, or where there are special requirements' to require signing in to contribute. It is probably impossible to eliminate the 'look-at-mes' and 'drive by nuisances' etc - and if the barriers are too high the effect will be too disruptive (and the more committed nuisances will sign in and be nuisances).

Compulsory signing is only likely to be viable for certain specialist small-scope wikis eg Ganfyd. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]