I understand that when legal says you have to do something you have to do it, but this could lead to issues down the road. I have a Wikipedia account, but often edit as an IP. For many of the small corrections I make and removing of vandalism I do, I do it as an IP. For many edits, the extra step of logging in would be enough to push me away from making the edit. I don't like to be logged into all my accounts all the time, and spending time logging in to fix a small error or mark a link as dead is just not worth it when I have other things to do. 2601:14A:C300:61D:52A0:6B4F:F7BF:CC4F (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a misunderstanding - the Portuguese Wikipedia community's decision to disallow IP editing is separate from the legally mandated introduction of IP masking on all projects. That said, the latter might well motivate other communities to follow ptwiki's lead, given the masking's significant impact on the existing privacy-accountability tradeoff. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the masking being mandated by legal is more like what you see on credit card receipts (and presumably for analogous reasons) — instead of your card number it will show something like **** **** **** 1234. When masking goes into effect, IP edits will show up for most of us as something similar to 192.168.123.*** Nothing changes for the IP users, only for the rest of us.
The interesting question is going to be what happens with IP "User" pages, since they'll presumably no longer be able to be individualized (without effectively giving away the IP editor's full IP). I guess all the edits from a given masking prefix might end up being aggregated together, which is especially unfortunate. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The implementation remains to be designed in conjunction with the communities, however at present the idea is to have a unique identifier in place of the IP address, which would be associated with the IP address. Alternatively a browser cookie could be used to associate the identifier with the editor (when they use the same browser on the same computer), or both IP address and cookie information can be used. Using both would avoid aggregating different editors who got assigned the same dynamic IP at different times, or multiple editors behind a common gateway, though the individual association would be broken if editors switched browsers or erased their cookies. Thus individual talk pages can still exist with masked identities. isaacl (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: Yeah, I realized that as I was in the middle of reading one of the later articles. Took me a bit, but I got there. So, yeah, maybe it's not all that bad.
In fact, the cookie-based identification is an interesting idea. If that's something that would follow a not-logged-in "IP" user around even across multiple device IPs, then it could actually be a considerable benefit to anti-vandalism efforts and sockpuppet investigations. At least, against miscreants sloppy enough that they forget to clear their cookies when switching IPs. (Which, if experience has taught me anything, would end up being most of them. At least over the long run.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on balance I think you may have a point Nigej, and personally I applaud the pt.wiki for taking this step. I'm not necessarily saying it's right for en.wiki yet, maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But at pt.wiki, given that it was explicitly mooted to solve a demonstrated problem affecting the quality and accuracy of their project, it's right that they should act. I can obviously see the benefit of it having been allowed historically, making it immediately obvious to potential new editors that this really is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The drawbacks of IP editing are there though - (1) people hopping around different IPs, which is quite legitimate since many ISPs do that by default, but making it hard for us to spot editing patterns; (2) the fact that editors may unwittingly have their edits publicly linked to their IP addresses, allowing the whole world to pinpoint their institution and geographical locale; (3) ease of vandlism, as seen at pt.wiki. As far as I can recall (and maybe someone will correct me on this if I'm wrong), being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is not actually one of our most important principles, and Jimbo has said in the past that if at some point the project would be better served by having a more restrictive model, then there's nothing to say that wouldn't happen - and indeed, the Wikipedia:Five pillars do not specifically mention allowing anyone to edit. The idea mentioned at that phabricator report, that the change to ban IP editing is "compromising on our values", doesn't ring true. Everyone is still free to sign up for an account and start editing straightaway anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that (2) is solved instead by the WMF's unpopular but confirmed IP masking approach. I oppose prohibition of unregistered editing on en.wiki, but I can see the point on smaller language editions and believe that pt.wiki made the right decision for them. — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to compare metrics from ptwiki post–IP ban with a similar Wikipedia that retained unregistered editors (maybe itwiki?) – Teratix₵23:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have mentioned the simplest response to the problem of IP vandals that also preserves the dearly idealized "everyone can edit". Limit IPs to one edit per day. On second edit suggest they login or create an account. No more competitions to see how many ha-ha edits to numerous pages one can do before WP:AIV reacts. It would limit the quantity of vandal edits tremendously. If you really want to contribute to WP, a contribution history is not a defect, and a login is not a problem.
- IP masking is disabling, as patterns of abuse by IP hopping vandals would become impossible to prove/research. I could try to convince the dubious here, but instead...
- I would wish everyone treasuring IP editing and apologizing for IP vandals would dedicate their first half hour of Wikipedia time daily to tracking IP edits. Give it a month. That's only 15 hours of your time, rather than someone else's time. Prove that vandals are not a timesink for others, by soaking up your time and goodwill. Your values will change to embrace pragmatism much more. Shenme (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the bigger problem here is retention not recruitment. Many prominent and experienced editors have left in recent times. And if masked IP editing takes hold this could considerable increase. Jules(Mrjulesd)13:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation can ban IP edits or not, but I support us banning masked edits. No matter how much the Foundation tries to minimize the harm, masked edits will cause more a lot more disruption and headaches than IP edits. I'm a techie and I have a pretty good handle on the possible implementations. The least disruptive method (a permanent Crypto-PAn encoding of IPs) would be a significant hindrance, while being vulnerable to cracking the privacy protection. And any more effective masking methods increasingly obliterate our ability to deal with problems. Alsee (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am against an IP ban (though I do have an account which is locked by Wikibreak Enforcer till June 2021) for obvious reasons. But, I would be okay with certain restrictions. For starters:
IPs' first few edits in 3 days (let's say 5 edits) will be subject to review by a stricter version of Cluebot or by human reviewers
IPs that have a history of vandalism will be subject to stricter restrictions before being blocked
I am also against IP masking (because I really don't understand how it helps Wikipedia). It can hinder anti-vandalism efforts. For example, assume that someone uses their Wi-Fi to vandalise and gets blocked. Then they switch to 4G and again get blocked or just unplug and plug in their Wi-Fi. It can actually make it easier for vandals to vandalise.
PS - if I understand correctly, Trump hates Section 230 and wants to destroy it, which can result in making Wikipedia accountable for what its editors write. But Biden has said that he will modify the law only to hold websites accountable for hate speech. Will Biden's actions affect Wikipedia in any way assuming he does what he says? 45.251.33.20 (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Last rephrased at 06:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am against an IP ban on the English version. We have much more sophisticated spam filters, more manpower, and different editing patterns than the Portuguese Wikipedia. The Portuguese version just doesn't have as much manpower, weaker abuse filters with fewer experts to create and manage them, and many more bored kids doing mobile vandalism. On the English version, there is definitely a far greater proportion of IPs that makes positive contributions. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fairly frequent contributor on the Portuguese Wikipedia (or as we lovingly call it in Portuguese, "A Wikipédia Lusófona"). I had actually voted against IP banning out of principle and believed that this could have been solved by improving edit filters. But afterwards, I saw the immense positive changes that happened. There were still just about as many regular positive contributions, while childish vandalism was greatly reduced. Before the IP ban, the number of registered users always hovered at just under 6,000, but now it's over 9,000 and growing.
On the Portuguese Wikipedia, the majority of IP edits are mobile edits from Brazil. There was a lot of sneaky vandalism that was difficult to track down, like changing birth dates and adding subtle but patent nonsense. Things appeared to get a lot worse this year when millions of Brazilian youths were locked down with nothing to do except vandalize Wikipedia on their phones. User:Yanguas, the Portuguese Wikipedia's most active admin, was furiously reverting IP after IP, but the admins couldn't catch every single vandal.
This discussion has been a huge deal on the Portuguese Wikipedia for several weeks, so I was a bit surprised that this wasn't discussed more on the English Wikipedia or on Meta. And I was the first (and as of now, still the only) English Wikipedia editor to update the Portuguese Wikipedia article about this major change to ptwiki.
So overall, I am pleased with the results that the community IP ban had achieved, and I would strongly advise against outside communities reverting this community decision. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was also a minor backlash right after the IP ban, when someone created a Wikipedia essay called "A Wikipédia não é uma tirania da maioria" (Wikipedia is not a tyranny of the majority). That got sent to the Portuguese version of AfD (called PE), which you can see here. Nearly everyone voted delete. If anyone is interested, I have a copy of it and can archive it here with an English translation, but just for historical interest of course. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yair rand: Thanks. I don't see the need for most other wikis to implement IP bans, maybe except for the Spanish Wikipedia. IP vandalism problems on eswiki resemble the ptwiki problems, but eswiki appears to have more manpower. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find this article very sad. I respect, as we must, competent legal advice but I cannot respect laws that force IP Masking. A prominent banner that appears when when you attempt to make an IP edit that says, "Warning! Your IP address will be publicly visible. To hide your IP address you must log in." should be enough. But alas some legal systems award damages to clumsy oafs who scald themselves on coffee that they know to be boiling hot. So just as all of us have to endure lukewarm coffee, we now have to allow vandals anonymity. We now have two choices. Either we ban IP edits (and is there any excuse for them?) or we have to accept that imbeciles can vandalise our pages with impunity. OrewaTel (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several cases including one in Australia. I have been offered a lukewarm coffee here in New Zealand with the reason being, "We aren't allowed to serve it hot for legal reasons." Absolutely crazy since NZ has a no blame compensation scheme. (If you are hurt in NZ you claim compensation from ACC, a Government Agency. We don't have ambulance chasing lawyers here.) OrewaTel (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off the subject. Please ignore the example of people too stupid to to be able to handle a coffee cup. My point remains that making IP addresses anonymous is an open invitation to vandals. OrewaTel (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: if that comment is addressed at me then I think you've misunderstood (or rather, I've miscommunicated) the nature of the video, which doesn't make fun of the victim of the incident. — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond this latest issue, it seems like there should be a working group or something re: reducing the bad impact of IP editors--not just direct vandalism, POV warring, etc., but also the time and effort wasted to monitor and correct these issues. Does anyone know if there is a central page for this? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crowdsourced guesses on crowdsourced edits The billionth edit pool was not mentioned, but it exists and was closed in June 2019. If The Signpost's predicted December/January threshold date is correct, Ben79487 will probably be the winner. Perhaps he will return from inactivity to take credit. - Bri.public (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to News and notes