"logged-in only" editing

It's a tough one, I can see good arguments for and against stopping anon edits. As far as proposing this for strategy; there was at least one proposal suggesting this. I think it would have been worth discussing some time back if we really wanted to give the idea a chance. It's probably also fair to say that this option has already gone through the minds of most people on the WMF. In other words, I doubt there's anyone there that hasn't considered it. Since there appears to be nothing coming from them about it perhaps it's fair to assume that there's currently no interest in pursuing this?

Bodnotbod19:59, 2 February 2010

You're right, it probably would have been better to discuss earlier. But if people are interested, I see no reason why we can't have that discussion now. Just needs someone motivated driving it.

I'm confused about your reference to the Wikimedia Foundation. Why are they relevant here? Don't the projects decide this policies for themselves?

Eekim20:02, 2 February 2010
 

I'm actually kind of opposed to this in principle, but mostly because the community has always had the conventional wisdom that IP editing = openness. But that interview gave me a new perspective. What if IP editing is generating more heat than light, and causing the community to close up? What if asking people to log-in first will actually make it easier for them to join the community? What if log-ins are good for openness?

Again, 20 Wikis on Wikia do it this way, and it supposedly leads to better content AND better community. There are no ghosts floating in vapor. People are people, and interaction becomes more human.

I wouldn't recommend just jumping in. But I'm very curious to get some data. A trial is exactly what we need, if we could figure out a good place to try first.

Randomran00:20, 3 February 2010
 

A parallel discussion is going on over at the Wikipedia Quality Task Force discussion page. I suggest we continue that discussion there.

Eekim08:32, 3 February 2010