Proposal talk:Create a reputation system and require logging-in to edit

How will this affect editors' ability to deal with ambiguity?

It's impossible to edit without being faced with questions about the right choices to make. Trying to make it easy to associate an idea with a person is reasonable for trust, but is it reasonable to require violations of identity privacy? Does the quality of an idea have more to do with the idea than the editor inserting it? Would a double-blind accuracy review system be better than trying to pin identities down? 99.60.1.164 20:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium

As pointed out at several spots, there already is a project that has a reputation system. Not only is this wildly unpopular, but in as far as I have checked the contents it is even worse as concerns accuracy than Wikipedia. - Brya 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarpedia also has a reputation system — but maybe Wikipedia needs content that is more accessible for adolescents, not even more scholarly. (See: Proposal talk:Wikipedia exclusively for Kids#Psychology)) --Fasten 13:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation system

I'm concerned about the implementation of this as written would be open to abuse by users. What prevents someone from running a campaign with dozens of sockpuppets to mess someone else's reputation up? Futhermore, a reputation system may lead some contributors being labeled as "super good" and unpopular ones being labeled as "worthless". 98.227.232.84 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals can make usernames like a Movie Theater makes popcorn (lots of them, and slippery too)

They make a new one, get banned, make a new one, get banned. Wikipedia won't usually ban their I.P. address because for all they know it could be a dynamic I.P. for a whole chock-a-block of computers. That's fair and right enough but it makes us vulnerable to any given vandal just making one username after another. A vandal out to have fun will figure out how.

I think Vandalism is something we have to accept. As long as we allow people to talk and write, they are going to say and write some things we don't agree with, and some things that don't even make sense. Unfortunate consequence of freedom of speech, I'm afraid. One we'll have to deal with on some level no matter what.

On a technical level, the internet (luckily) has yet to have the infrastructure to remove the everyday anonymity the internet affords simply by (for better and for worse) walking into a library, connecting to a different network etc.

--Lyc. cooperi 09:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a technical level, Wikipedia already blocks IP addresses of vandals. If the IP address is disruptive (e.g. 2+ edits within 24 hours), the IP gets blocked regardless of whether or not edits are legitimate. In addition, Mediawiki also creates auto-blocks that block the IP address of a vandal account, preventing further changes from a given source.

As for a reputation system, there's already an informal system in place. Autoconfirmed comes after ~4 days and/or 10 edits, which flag that the account is not likely to be a vandal account. Some wikimedia sites (such as en.wikibooks) also add Editor, which give additional rights if they remain an editor for a long enough time, showing that the account is likely to be productive. There's also the manually assigned rights such as Rollback and Patroller on the various wikis, and if a certain wiki desires, could easily create a set of "half-sysop" rights that allow access to some specific tasks without having the full power of a sysop. --Sigma 7 03:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mis-impression regarding that point, and thanks for adding the detailled information re: this proposal. I think my basic point still stands. Usernames instead of IPs are more or less the same in regards to defense against vandalism. People can make one and then make another, so I'm not sure requiring usernames would effectively protect from vandalism. --Lyc. cooperi 17:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On En Wiki we certainly don't block IP addresses for making two edits in 24 hours. We usually go through four levels of warnings before blocking for the fifth offense, and if its an IP they have to be recent warnings. Also as IPs relate to computers not individuals we usually only block them for short periods of time. 31 Hours normally covers that schoolday and the next. By contrast vandalism only accounts get blocked indefinitely. WereSpielChequers 06:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact?

Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This system can stop amateurs but can help professional vandals

It would be very easy for a professional vandal or POV pusher to create several user-ids who will be 99.9999% reputable for 2 months, so that he can push his subtle POV in the one article he cares about. Then what can you do? You have created a person who is trustworthy. A passer-by will assume at a glance that this was a good entry, judging only the reputation-point-system for this person. Little would he know, that the user-id was one of the twenty user-ids created by this marketing executive who wants to persuade us all that xxx product is safe and all the reports who say otherwise are creations of the enemies of the people. No reputation system please. It can only harm in the long term. --FocalPoint 07:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]