Anonymous users - Red Link

[Versuri]

Why not fix a deadline for users create their bio?

[Zachary Pruckowski]

The informal policy is to drop the {{awelcome}} template on anyone who actually edits, which contains a line asking for a bio.  From there, people who are actually here to edit seem to go ahead and do it, and if they don't make a bio and continue to edit, we'll take it further.

Most of the users who have registered in the last few days are here to look, it seems.

[Nancy Sculerati]

Nothing wrong with that, they are welcome. And can always begin writing or editing when ready - as long as they start with their own bio!

[Versuri]

The problem is that many are not using their real names.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

The problem is that many are not using their real names.

Most obviously fake names seem to get the boot from constables sooner or later (see the block log).  Any non-obviously fake names get the boot when and if they vandalize.  Most people who actually join the community for working purposes seem to use their real names.

Overall, it's working rather well.  We've had one guy vandalize us heavily on two occasions (last night and last week sometime) with a series of sockpuppets and a changing IP address, but other than that, it seems to be going OK.

[Versuri]

I particularly do not like self-registration. Something must be done to stop vandalism.

[Nancy Sculerati]

I particularly do not like self-registration. Something must be done to stop vandalism.

Versuri, I agree. What would you suggest?

[David Tribe]

Here I am contributing as a constable.

We need as a community to apply more soft moral pressure on trolls and similar unhelpful behavior.

First point:  To some extent, the requirement for a bio are not being met by many users.

This, like the real-names policy, is an important tool to manage community behavior. Why should a stamp collector's judgments be given much weight in, say, political theory?

Quite a few bios  make it impossible to verify any statement about the writer. Can I suggest you all try more engagement in a tactful way, with other authors at their talk pages and elsewhere, calling on them to fill in the gaps on their sources of expertise .

So far I am pleasantly surprised at the strong qualifications of the most gentile participants, in fact often an inverse relationship between expertise and dogmatic style. Their example should be followed: lay out the evidence and logic and the outcome in the article will be obvious to most who engage sincerely with the process. The real professionals avoid name-calling because of their years of experience with ethical debate; the neophytes often stand out by their apparent ignorance of these norms. I suspect this goes to the heart of problems in this area at WP.

The articles themselves should definitely not be a forum for a discussion of the worth of the content displayed and editorial misjudgments , this should occur in the talk pages and forums. Those people with no obvious expertise in a topic from their bios should at least explain where they hold expertise in commenting out of their areas.

For instance, although I  hold expertise in medical sciences, perhaps I should list my Lancet, Epidemiology, and Clinical Microbiology and Aids and Human retrovirius publications in my bio explicity before commenting vigorously  in health science, and certainly be cautious in areas of health science I am inexpert. Infectious disease yes, for me, diabetes no. I simply haven't yet registered as a medical scientist because when I first registered I didn't know the category existed. I'm trying to figure out the due process to do so.

I'm a biochemist too, but I limit my chemistry remarks to areas of competence, or grammar. I'm much stronger that most of the current chemists on biotechnology , and immediately see shortcomings there in chemistry, as I've taught the stuff to generations of undergraduates.

Second point: the discussion pages are there for a reason.
What is improper is someone who has vague qualifications effectively overriding the long editorial process without any substantive argument in the talk pages in areas where they have no defined credential and without and verifiable evidence. eg Religion experts effectively deleting health science articles.

There are indeed controversial topics and differences of opinion. They need to be worked through in a respectful way first of all  in the discussion pages. It is disrespectful to those who have put themselves through this demanding and at times frustrating process to not visit them as a first step and honestly engage with it.

Third point: Be specific. Larry's talk page is not the place for minutia, but is the place for some policy issues. Also philosophy. Keep the Main page talk for overarching problems such as security. Yes we know constables talk pages have been locked temporarily (sorry were learning too) , but we've now solved that security issue by only locking the against moves, so now that preferred option for discussion is open. And use the constables email system. it works.

That enough for now. Apologies for sounding like a constable. But thats what I am. Its a tough job and someone's gotta do it, but at least with a sense of humor (some of the other constables are really funny). I don't have more time at the moment to home my rhetoric further  - I type real slow, and there's a few vandals and milder threats lurking in the ether.



David Tribe, Constable




 

[Versuri]

I particularly do not like self-registration. Something must be done to stop vandalism.

Versuri, I agree. What would you suggest?

Self-registration is the easiest way to attract vandals, then CZ must have another way to allow users to edit in the wiki. The former way was better.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

Self-registration is the easiest way to attract vandals, then CZ must have another way to allow users to edit in the wiki. The former way was better.

That option doesn't scale.  It's fine when we are only adding a dozen people a day, but when we're adding hundreds of people a day, it simply doesn't work.

[JFPerry]

One possible registration system is one where current wiki authors who have demonstrated a certain level of activity and constructive work are given a number of invites which they can distribute as they wish. This is similar to the system employed by gmail when that service first got started.

This would seem to meet the problem of lack of scalability of the former registration system as well as go a long way towards avoiding the problems of self-registration.

[Stephen Ewen]

I am still going to come out on the side of real-deal identity verification via credit card, faxed or scanned driver license, etc.

Do that, along with creating a special page publicly shaming vandals by name, and the problem with vandals will cease to almost nil.

[Versuri]

I've found this post and I agree with the author:

Treat contributing to Citizendium the same as you would treat writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper.  In either case, you affix your name, and sufficient information to allow the newspaper to check that you are who you say you are.  You do this because you stand behind what you are writing, and want to take responsibility for it.  Being on the Internet doens't change this -- it's still a matter of taking responsibility for what you write, or not.