Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:IP editors are human too

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Outdated study

[edit]

I would be interested to see a new study of IP versus User edits. 2007 was a loooooong time ago.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers: Me too. For that last study, User:Opabinia regalis looked at 250 edits covering a time span of three minutes on a single date. She might be willing to carry it out once more, although I'm not sure how much work it is to do manually. Perhaps a bot could do a good enough job, and increase the sample? WP:BOTREQ comes to mind. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I had no idea this was still being cited somewhere - maybe I ought to delete that page! I'm pretty sure we can do better than "one person was kinda bored one time in 2007". I don't have time for this, but I bet the team developing WP:ORES has lots of interesting data. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should have info from 2022. It is outdated. And I am an IP editor (I am human btw) so this might matter 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 June 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 22:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IPs are human too → Wikipedia:IP editors are human too – This article conveys that WP:AGF, WP:NEWBIES, WP:CIVIL, etc. also apply when interacting with IP editors. It attempts doing so by pointing out that, while actions performed by non-registered humans leave traces of IP addresses instead of usernames, these non-registered humans are, first and foremost, humans. Yet the article title refers to IP editors as "IPs", thereby essentially equating IP editors with IP addresses, which is dehumanizing. IP addresses are not people (WP:NOTHUMAN). Put differently, referring to IP editors as "IPs", is emphasizing the IP aspect, instead of the human aspect, e.g. "editor", of these contributors. Language is powerful. I suggest moving this article to Wikipedia:IP editors are human too. There are other alternatives, such as "Unregistered users are...", but in my experience it's already common practice to refer to IP editors as IP editors. Even the lead of this article already contains the phrase, in (emphasis mine) "[...] is generated by IP editors, over 80% of edits [...]". 143.176.30.65 (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to voice your opinion on current policy, or propose a policy change, you may start a discussion at WP:VP/PR or meta:WM:FORUM, or at the very least in a different section. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers: Funny. You might want to read this. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Littleb2009: - I am only too aware. As mentioned above, that survey is fourteen years old and even then represented a very tiny sample. WP has changed since then. I know that what I see is a limited view, but I reckon that maintaining an encyclopaedia is a completely different animal from creating one. From what I can tell, IP vandalism has increased exponentially while the number of editors who maintain and protect pages remains static. This needs to be looked into IMHO, with a proper survey. As for scaring off newbs, We could easily allow an IP address to get five or ten edits per year before registering. It would benefit IP editors themselves, as they would no longer be identifiable by place. Another benefit is that since one cannot really communicate with IPs (IP talk pages are usually just other editors shouting into the dark), editors are less likely to discuss with IPs before reverting. I am happy to explain what   means or how a conversion template works to someone if there is a chance of them reading it, but it feels pointless when it's just someone using an IP that will be stale tomorrow. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers: the IP vandals only need to sign up for an account. Unless you employ complicated technical restrictions, your idea won't work. I'm also not sure if this talk page is the right place for this discussion. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Littleb2009: I know, I am just trying to do the Carthago delenda est thing. Requiring registration seems to work pretty well at German Wikipedia, and if it's enough of an obstacle to presumably scare off potential good editors then it may also be sufficient to at least slow down the infinite stream of anonymous vandalism. Anyhow, my hope is to make a proper survey and look at evidence from other language projects. Also, I have been told that some new privacy standards will make IP editing impossible anyhow, with community input being largely cast aside (but I am unclear on what this whole meta discussion actually means).  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the title and article serve as a non-ironic reminder of what should be obvious. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Station1: Which is why this is so funny - changing the title as proposed obviously takes away from it. Which suits me fine as I disagree with not requiring registration, so Support.  Mr.choppers | ✎  10:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I don't like that "are human too" angle in the title. Their humanity is not in question, rather, it is their validity as contributors that is in the essay. Propose something like Wikipedia:IP editors as CONCISE. Perhaps this will lead to expansion of page to include more on the broader topic. -- Netoholic @ 19:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article's essence, as I see it, is a reminder to treat IP editors humanely. It then states that occasionally registered editors fail to do so because of misconceptions. Next, it discusses one misconception related to vandalism in detail. The title and article serve as a non-ironic reminder of what should be obvious, and for you and I is indeed not in question. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is my favorite edit of this page. I imagine it was done by a registered editor who logged out to prove a point. Very meta.  Mr.choppers | ✎  10:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your comment is related to this move discussion. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
...the article title refers to IP editors as "IPs", thereby essentially equating IP editors with IP addresses... In this context, the use of IP does not mean "IP editors = IP addresses", is about as clear as we understand that IP editors does not mean "IP editors = people who edit IP addresses".
...referring to IP editors as "IPs", is emphasizing the IP aspect, instead of the human aspect... Yes, because "IP" is what needs emphasizing. "Editors are human" is obvious and does not. This I assume is intentional as commented by Station1 above and the subtlety is lost with the proposed change. DB1729 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how, it already being clear to you that IPs in the title refers to IP editors, is an argument against modifying "IPs" to "IP editors". As an IP editor I don't want to be referred to as an IP. I'm an editor. An IP editor. Not an IP. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an editor, like you. IP editors are, first and foremost, editors. Labeling IP editors as IPs equates them with their user status as if it's a disability. It's not neutral language. It's condescending. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I have added my user name to my paragraph to which you were replying. If you are offended by the use of "IP", I accept it as genuine and I'm not going argue over how you feel. I stand by my opinions. --DB1729 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
143.176.30.65 was in violation of WP:INTERLEAVE. Your post should not have been split. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Redrose64 Sorry. Didn't know about that guideline - that totally makes sense. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The essay is meant to convey that "IP editors" are human too; not just registered users. This humanity is obviously the case, and (almost) nobody will deny this. The essay serves as a reminder of this, for editors who at times may fail to remain sufficiently civil when interacting with IP editors. To assume good faith, and treat newcomers with patience. The "IP" aspect of IP editors is indeed what needs emphasizing, but "IP editors" simultaneously does this and is more accurate. And, yes, "editors are human" is indeed obvious, but this is a reminder that IP editors are too. Check the two paragraphs of the lead section of this revision. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, "editors are human" is indeed obvious, but this is a reminder that IP editors are too. IP editors are editors. A subset. As such "Editors are human" means all editors, inclusive. The current title is a better reminder imo: 'Remember everyone, there is a person behind the IP address, regardless of whether or not you see through those dots and numbers.' Your proposal is softening the impact of the title. If one suggested changing the title to "Unregistered editors are human too" (arguably more accurate), I would say that is softening it even more so. DB1729 (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing dispute, third-party input requested

[edit]

I made this edit, with edit summary "I've rewritten the lead section." This changed the lead section from this to this. My edit was reverted by User:Mr.choppers, with edit summary "better before, plenty editorializing here already". Discussion between us then took place at User talk:Mr.choppers#IPs are human too, although this quickly ended in an editing dispute. Third-party input is necessary to guide us disputants through a discussion and towards a compromise. It would be beneficial to us both if a third party could compare the two lead sections, and provide us with feedback. A dispute resolution request at WP:DRN#Wikipedia:IPs are human too was closed, with the suggestion to start a discussion on this talk page instead. The aforementioned DRN section contains a readable "Closed discussion" that includes dispute summaries by us both, and a brief discussion. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mr.choppers. This, for instance, is too strong. You said he doesn't "get to make a statement here with your edit during dispute resolution." But the dispute started because you made a bold edit and Mr.choppers challenged it. So we should default to status quo. Aiming Guides (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the IP's version is not better than the current version. The proposed changes are WP:NPOV and do not WP:AGF. Not all registered editors discount IP editors- and it would not be fair for the article to imply that. As a DRN volunteer- I have worked often to support changes suggested by IPs- so I personally object to the change highlighted above. I'm also a recent change patroller and vandalism fighter- I don't look at WHO made the change- I just look at the change. I don't think that ALL named accounts deserve to be accused of disparaging IPs any more than ALL IP accounts deserve to be ignored because they choose not to make an account. Neutrality is key! Nightenbelle (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a bit confused here with the edits from 143.x.x.x. This is an essay. It specifically states consensus is limited. The IP editor needs to stop forum shopping and drop it. – The Grid (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this IP editor in this case. In some cases, the nature of a revert itself often expresses a non-neutral point of view. -Mardus /talk 10:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are going to be masked.

[edit]

So… I heard from Johan Jönsson at the Wikimedia Foundation, on an administrator’s talk page that IP editors are soon to be masked.

Per the administrator’s response, we will soon have to stop calling this “IP editors are human too”.

If IP editors really are going to be masked, are there any suggestions as to what we will move this page to? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this would apply to WP:NOTHUMAN, as well as any page that refers to “IP editors”. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still curious what this will entail: I don't particularly care to know where someone is, but it is helpful to be able to identify patterns when dealing with IP vandalism. Will range blocks still be possible? It is already so hard to slow down IP vandalism and I fear this will make it even more time consuming.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to everyone who worked on this!

[edit]

This is the most well written thing i have seen in wikipedia on a while, to everyone who worked on this article i want to say a thanks to how well written this is! DeathcatThor (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:IP_editors_are_human_too&oldid=1241776995"