मुख्य मेनू उघडा
प्रवेश करा(लॉग इन करा)
"सदस्य चर्चा:Padalkar.kshitij" च्या विविध आवृत्यांमधील फरक
← मागील फरक
पुढील फरक →
००:४०, ११ ऑगस्ट २०१२ ची आवृत्ती
५,५३६ बाइट्सची भर घातली
बदलांचा आढावा नाही
००:४८, ३१ जुलै २०१२ ची आवृत्ती
(काही मजकूर इथे हलवत आहे.)
← मागील फरक
००:४०, ११ ऑगस्ट २०१२ ची आवृत्ती
पुढील फरक →
[[सदस्य:माहीतगार|माहीतगार]] ०७:३५, २४ ऑगस्ट २००९ (UTC)
===IPs are human too===
Analysis of 248 edits to English-language Wikipedia articles from 04:43 to 04:46 UTC on 18 Feb 2007 (Source):
Many users believe that unregistered users' sole contributions to Wikipedia are to cause disruption to articles and that they have fewer rights as editors compared with registered users. Studies in 2004 and 2007 found that while most vandalism (80%) is generated by IP editors, over 80% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism. As current policy stands, unregistered users have exactly the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia.
Because of these misconceptions, edits by unregistered users are mistakenly reverted and their contributions to talk pages discounted. This practice is against the philosophy of Wikipedia and founding principles of all Wikimedia projects. When dealing with unregistered contributors, the rule to remember is: IPs are human too.
You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so. The only difference between you and an IP contributor is that your IP address is hidden. When you registered for Wikipedia your IP address became hidden behind a user name. Unregistered users are often called anonymous editors. In fact, because your IP address is hidden, it is you that are more anonymous. (Your IP address is still recorded by the software. It is simply not visible to most users.)
Remember this when dealing with unregistered users. They are not a lower category of users. They are not a special subset that we tolerate. They are not locust swarms intent on destroying your article. They are individuals, the same as you – only they have just not registered for an account. Just as you deserve to be treated with civility and good faith, the edits of unregistered users deserve civility and good faith from you. As your contributions to talk pages deserve to be heard and counted when forming consensus, so too do the contributions of unregistered users.
Our readers are IPs too
Our readers are IPs too. Virtually none of our readers are registered users. When an unregistered user makes an edit to an article or posts a comment on a talk page, these are the views of one of our readers. That doesn't necessarily mean that their view should be given greater weight. It means that we should not discriminate against their view just because they don't have an account.
Many users misconceive that policy and guidelines only apply to registered users. Not so. Policy and guidelines affect all users, registered and unregistered, equally.
Comments by unregistered users on talk pages don't count: Yes they do. The purpose of talk page discussion is to build consensus. Contributions from unregistered users are just as important in determining consensus as contributions from registered users. Unregistered users edit here too. Almost all of our readers are unregistered users. Comment on the contribution, not the contributor. Never disregard a contribution just because it was made by someone who has not registered for an account.
Unregistered users are more likely to vandalise articles: This is true; by contrast, the greater proportion of their contributions are non-vandalism edits. In a February 2007 study of 248 edits, 80.2% of vandalism was done by unregistered editors. But 81.9% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism. Non-vandalism edits by unregistered users accounted for 29.4% of all article edits. Of the article edits, only 6.5% were vandalism by unregistered users; in contrast, unregistered users reverted over a quarter (28.5%) of all vandalism. 91.9% of the edits to Wikipedia articles were constructive and unregistered users accounted for nearly a third of those. Another study carried out by IBM found "no clear connection between anonymity and vandalism"; in addition, the research group found anonymous users provide significant and substantial positive contributions.
Unregistered users are more likely to be sock puppets: This doesn't even make sense. Unregistered users cannot be sock puppets. You would need to register for an account in order to have a sock puppet account. Disreputable registered users can sign out of their accounts and contribute under their IP address for disruptive or deceptive purposes (e.g. ballot stuffing). In that event, it is not an unregistered user behaving disreputably, it is a registered user. Unless you see signs of sock puppetry, assume good faith. Otherwise request a CheckUser to confirm if they are actually sock puppets.
Unregistered users don't know/understand policy: Maybe. Some of them. Often, neither do registered users. An unregistered user may be a one-off contributor or a first-time editor (it's just more difficult to tell). Bear that in mind and remember: don't be a dick and don't bite the newcomer.
Policy doesn't apply to unregistered users (e.g. assume good faith): Policy applies to you. You need to assume good faith. You need to behave in a civil fashion. You need to engage in discussion. It doesn't matter whether you are dealing with an unregistered user or not. It is you that needs to follow policy.
They should register for an account (e.g. if they want to participate): No. You need to accept their contributions, heed their suggestions and participate in consensus building with them. There is no requirement for anyone to register for an account before they can participate in the building of this encyclopedia. There is, however, a requirement on you that you behave.
" पासून हुडकले