Talk:How Things Work Around Here

I was seeing a lot more anonymous edits show up in the recent changes, and while I know this page implies some are OK, I think it's really best to require the login. I can easily remove it (or you can, EB - it's the last line in LocalSettings.php). This way we have accountability, and it's not as if we're about to sell people's email addresses. --Krenn 11:21, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I'm of two minds about this and would like more input from the community (that's you, whomever is reading this). One side of me agrees with Krenn, we'd like to have some way of confirming the authority behind any changes (who is this person and do they really know what they're talking about?). Also, sometimes when I arrive at the Wiki it says it knows who I am, but as soon as I edit a page, it loses the cookie and treats my edits as anonymous. Sometimes I go for two or three edits before I realize it. The OTHER side of me doesn't want to discourage participation in any way. If I have a choice, I prefer to access web services anonymously and will often skip over a site requiring a registration/login in favour of one that doesn't. I don't want folks feeling that way about the An Tir Wiki.

Anybody have thoughts either way on this? --Elizabeth Braidwood

I think there are a lot of people who do an edit or two before they get hooked and create an account. I know that at other wikis I like to have the ability to do a quick edit without needing to create yet another account. One wiki that I have seen go the other way is: http://www.katrinahelp.info/wiki/main.html which does require an account. --IasonVorax

Personally, I regard the cookie glitch as a really good reason to have this turned on. Otherwise, you don't realize you're making edits without the system properly attributing you. I truly don't see the login requirement as a barrier at all, and people can still access it fine without login, it's just edits that require that. It may be possible to set it so that talk pages can be anonymous but main pages require it, I'm not certain. --Krenn

Krenn, I don't think we've come to a consensus on this issue yet. Please turn OFF the required login for the time being. --Elizabeth Braidwood

OK, done, but having seen automated wikispam hit several other sites, I reserve the right to say "I told you so." ;) --Krenn

Three bot hits in the last two days. IMO, we either need to turn off anon posting, or add in Captcha images to block bots. I'm not sure how hard the latter would be. --Krenn 06:20, 30 Nov 2005 (EST)

I'm in favor of encouraging, but not requireing. And I'm fully ready to hear the "I told you so"! :) - Quentin Martel

Three more spamhits (rv'd by Wenyeva) since my last message. I think that qualifies for "I told you so". :( --Krenn 23:51, 30 Nov 2005 (EST)

I know Wikipedia doesn't believe in requiring logins, and I understand why, but I also think that a wiki with a small editor base like this may need to require logins. We don't have thousands of people patrolling to catch the spam. I just started editing here, and I have been checking Recent Changes since I noticed that wikispammers were here, but if the edits have scrolled out of Recent Changes, I (and others) might miss them. Hopefully there are enough people watching to keep the spammers away, but this wiki is definitely on their list now... I hate captchas. I'd rather require logins. Wenyeva atte grene 23:59, 30 Nov 2005 (EST)

I think it may be possible to have the CAPTCHA only on anonymous and on account registration, but not on validated accounts. It's definitely a "hack the code" implementation, so I'll need to step lightly. --Krenn 00:28, 1 Dec 2005 (EST)

CAPTCHAs especially sophisticated ones can be annoying, and there are accessibility issues. OTOH I've already stuck a real basic one on the recommendation page on the main An Tir site, with the actual letters spelled out in the alt tag. Obviously pretty hackable, but my theory was that it wouldn't be worth the bother. Another option would be email notification of edits, but that could be pretty annoying just by itself.