IP editors - the great unwanted

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
Post Reply
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

IP editors - the great unwanted

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:45 am

So, the Foundation has just floated the idea that it might be time to start doing something about hiding the IP address of so called unregistered users from public view. Having learned now that they don't actually own or run the Foundation websites in any significant way, they're starting out not with a detailed technical proposal, but merely a social consultation, to ask the volunteers if this is a good idea. Although the basic technical means seems to be to assign IP editors an identifier akin to a username, which will persist for a certain session length, thereby making cookies an even more integral part of the privacy invading Wikipedia experience than it already is.

The reaction is predictable. Ignoring all the reasons for doing it, the counter proposal of just ending the ability of unregistered editors to edit is floated. Naturally, the reasons for doing this are entirely focused on what is perceived as best for English Wikipedia, and if the idiot in question even realized this is a movement wide proposal, he clearly doesn't care....
I know that I'm titling at a windmill...
...but the obvious and rational way to deal with the problem of IP editing is to disallow it, not to make it more difficult to follow the editor behind the numbers. You folks are going to end up building this totally unnecessary infrastructure instead of doing the reasonable thing, and all because of an obsolete ideological precept that nobody else on the level of Wikipedia follows. You're being led by the nose by an idea which died long ago. You clearly don;t care that IP editors are the main locus of vandalism, and are, overall, a net negative. You'd solve your problems easier by disallowing IP editing, and requiring everyone to register, just like the big boys do.

You folks are hopeless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
This idea that IP editors are a net negative is obvious bullshit, it wouldn't stand up to any actual analysis, but like most things the embedded Wikipedians say and believe about their often quite narrow lived experience of the projects, it is a strongly held position for which evidence plays no part in its framing. Much like their belief being assholes has no net negative effect. It is almost as if they think the Wikipedia is absolutely thriving, with editors aplenty, all ensuring they are fast approaching their common goal. Like I said, these people are impervious to evidence.

But rehashes of the whole Are IPs Useful argument isn't why this proposal is so interesting. What piqued my interest, and what was hilarious given the nominal reason for the proposal (better privacy for unregistered users) was the revelations it produced about the attitude the Wikipedians have to that very thing. These are best summed up by the angry rants of Administrator MER-C, an English Wikipedia resident naturally (you can tell, by the innate hostility), who is outraged at potentially losing all that rich publicly available data about IPs - their location, the nature of their ISP and likely use, probable partners, and all that cookie goodness. Evidently he doesn't care a jot that those who register, at a single stroke of a key, deny the general public access to that very same information. The inherent assumption is obvious - unregistered editors are scum who are always up to no good and need to be scared witless into compliance with Wikipedia's rules, but registered users are saints whose compliance can be assumed and if necessary be handled by trusted functionaries only.

There was an even neater summation of this attitude......
Doesn't sound like a good idea. If people are concerned about their privacy, they should become registered. ...... Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
.....as espoused by yet another English Wikipedia resident, wherein it is evidently believed that the protection of privacy is not a right to be afforded to all users, it is a privelage to be bestowed on those who register an account.

This all cuts to the heart of the issue. It is indeed high time the privacy available to unregistered users was brought into line with registered users, as a matter of basic principle. There are frankly no benefits to registering on Wikipedia, unless of course you plan on becoming a hard core addict. Allowing unregistered users to edit Wikipedia is still a fundamental part of their model for its basic utility, and as any idiot familiar with Wikipedia would just know, anyone with any designs on doing something seriously bad, of course quickly figures out that their best course of action is to register, and indeed to adopt all the trappings and affectations of a committed and long term user of the site. I don't doubt there are many out there who are turning this reality of the cult into paydirt.

Not that you can't do bad things as an IP, but that doesn't usually succeed simply because they allow UP editing - it is because they lack the manpower and technology to tell who is being bad. As moribund as Wikipedia is as a collaborative encyclopedia building project, the irony is they are still seeing thousands of edits a minute, simply by virtue of their undeserved public profile and perceived importance. It is ironically only because they were so successful at deceiving the world into thinking their model worked, that on their flagship project, they are realizing on a daily basis that they simply cannot cope with one of the biggest problems their model has - the need for real time scrutiny of all edits.

Perhaps the major benefit of the scheme is that English Wikipedia Administrator Bbb23 has said he will leave if it happens. Evidently giving IPs more privacy would be a pain in his butt. Those who know what he does and how he does it, would quite agree.

It says everything about the morally bankrupt Foundation that they haven't just implemented this as a matter of urgency, and just let the volunteers cope with any deficiencies, as is their rightful place in the organizational chart. That they are waiting for the input or indeed the permission of people whose inherent immorality is clear and obvious, is reprehensible.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: IP editors - the great unwanted

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:07 am

One of the very first comments on the page comes from a Steward, the highest rank of volunteer they have........
I know that other companies are using more intrusive methods to monitor who is accessing their site, and we should consider whatever they are doing so long as we handle that data responsibly. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean, what the actual fuck?

Either the Foundation wants Wikipedia to be a website where it doesn't really matter who you are, and for the lofty goals of defeating global censorship and bringing free knowledge to the world they should be aiming to collect as little personal identifying information about you as is necessary to achieve their basic function, or they want it to be Facebook.

How ironic that to achieve their highest principles, as always, it is their principle of being a volunteer driven movement that probably has to be dumped. Much like the goal of ensuring a safe and respectful community, there are some principles that simply can't be left to the volunteers to implement, they need to be actively turned into reality by the organization responsible for publicizing these things as global movement values.

User avatar
sashi
Sucks Critic
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: IP editors - the great unwanted

Post by sashi » Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:03 pm

Like Jake, I think pending changes should be instituted on all BLP. Do you think that's a good idea? For IPs as for named accounts? (caveat: actually, maybe Jake just thinks all BLPs should be deleted, I forget).

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: IP editors - the great unwanted

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:54 am

sashi wrote:Like Jake, I think pending changes should be instituted on all BLP. Do you think that's a good idea? For IPs as for named accounts? (caveat: actually, maybe Jake just thinks all BLPs should be deleted, I forget).
If Jake thinks it, it's bound to be garbage.

Wikipedia can't be reformed, it has to be destroted. The ideal way for Wikipedia to handle BLPs was unsurprisingly for their theoretical operating model to become reality. An impossible dream. Everything anyone suggests by way of a fix, will either be unachievable, or a mere sticking plaster. Better public education would help, until the Great Explosion, but Jake isn't the man for that. Too busy sucking Wikipedian dick for clicks. Fuck him.

User avatar
rog
Sucks Noob
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:36 am

Re: IP editors - the great unwanted

Post by rog » Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:13 am

CrowsNest wrote:Wikipedia can't be reformed, it has to be destroted.


WP:SODESTROTEIT

Post Reply