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....
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.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)
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......
.....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.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)
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.