Star Trek Online Wiki
Explore
Main Page
All Pages
Interactive Maps
STO wiki
Sandbox
About STO
STO basics
Wiki guidelines
Wiki policies
Communications
Community portal
Community talk
Suggestion Box
Admin noticeboard
Discord #wiki-talk
STO User Hub
In-Game Chat
Quick links
Playable starship
Starship traits
Sets
Abilities
Damage (space)
Player rank
Reputation
Specialization
Seasons
Mission Journal
TFOs
Endeavors
Lobi crystals
Factions
Starfleet
Klingon Empire
Romulan Republic
TOS Starfleet
Dominion
DSC Starfleet
FANDOM
Fan Central
BETA
Games
Anime
Movies
TV
Video
Wikis
Explore Wikis
Community Central
Start a Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Sign In
Sign In
Register
Star Trek Online Wiki
20,301
pages
Explore
Main Page
All Pages
Interactive Maps
STO wiki
Sandbox
About STO
STO basics
Wiki guidelines
Wiki policies
Communications
Community portal
Community talk
Suggestion Box
Admin noticeboard
Discord #wiki-talk
STO User Hub
In-Game Chat
Quick links
Playable starship
Starship traits
Sets
Abilities
Damage (space)
Player rank
Reputation
Specialization
Seasons
Mission Journal
TFOs
Endeavors
Lobi crystals
Factions
Starfleet
Klingon Empire
Romulan Republic
TOS Starfleet
Dominion
DSC Starfleet
Talk:
Anonymous editing/Archive
Back to page
Add topic
Edit source
View history
Edit Page
STOWiki talk:Anonymous editing/Archive
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Quality of Anonymous Edits?=== I'm afraid I have to vote to keep the wiki closed. I understand [[User:Eyes]]' cost-benefit argument, however my main objection is the quality of edits we are likely to get. I think anon editing works on Wikipedia as there is a large staff of administrators who ensure that guidelines and best practices are adhered to. We have no such luxury. [[User:Eyes]] made the point there there are still a large number of red links on simple articles that really should exist by now. I'd like to point out that there are ''more'' articles that are incomplete or poorly written than there are missing articles. There are ~3,200 articles on this wiki, ~500 of which are stubs. Ok, I know not all of those have no content in them, but thats a large proportion (~15%). Many articles are made by simply pasting in content from the official website or forums. Very few people write prose, upload screenshots, or restructure things. I know that, with a larger community, there will be more small edits to gradually refine these old or bad articles, but what we really need is committed editors who will take ownership of things. These are the people who care enough to register anyway. Yeah, I know registration will scare off some people who might have turned out to be great contributors, but its will also weed out hundreds of sub-standard edits that don't add much. What I'm trying to say is, I think the potential benefit from anonymous editing is low. Just my opinion! --[[User:Zutty|Zutty]] 17:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC) :If we were to get hundreds of anonymous edits, high quality or otherwise, I might reverse my opinion. I'm expecting a few a day ''at most''. Anons tend to make small fixes or edit talk pages, so they're quick edits to check generally. Those who then decide they want to edit seriously will likely register. :So, my simple response to this point is that I don't think it's a good idea to base one's opinion on probable edit volume when we won't know what that is until we do it. Coming from another gaming wiki, I just don't see a vast volume of anonymous edits happening. <font color="#999999">—</font> [[User:Eyes|<small>'''Eyes'''</small>]] [[Image:User-Eyes-Sig.png|link=User talk:Eyes]] 17:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC) ::STOwiki has progressed this far entirely though registered users (closing in on 3000!). Anonymous edits would allow a slight convenience for people, but opens up potential for easy access to bad behavior. I don't see the pros outweighing the cons and as such I would not recommend anonymous edits at this time. --[[User:MatthewM|MatthewM]] 20:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC) :::This attitude is so difficult for me to understand that I'm going to suggest the compromise of a trial period. Experience tells me that anonymous edits happen on a wiki this size in only small volumes. I ask for the chance to prove the following: :::*The risks and cons are being vastly overestimated. :::*The ability of the admin team and the community to protect the wiki are being vastly underestimated. :::*The time investment required for this protect the wiki is being vastly overestimated. :::We aren't Wikipedia. Getting hundreds of anonymous edits is very unlikely; we don't have the hit count. A handful of anonymous edits each month is what I've seen on another small wiki that had the opposite attitude to anonymous editing: they tended to bend over backwards to keep it open and closed it only during the worst-case scenario of a botnet attack. (And I'll also add that all of botnet's edits were quickly reverted/deleted during the attack.) I was never an admin, but I did tend to watch recent changes closely there when I was an active editor. Anonymous edits were a small fraction of the edits made by registered users. Only a fraction of the anon edits were vandalism. <font color="#999999">—</font> [[User:Eyes|<small>'''Eyes'''</small>]] [[Image:User-Eyes-Sig.png|link=User talk:Eyes]] 06:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC) ::::I think you know more about this than I do. If this has worked out before in your experience, then perhaps theres nothing to worry about. A trial period sounds like a fair compromise. --[[User:Zutty|Zutty]] 10:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to the Star Trek Online Wiki are considered to be released under the CC BY-NC-SA
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Follow on IG
TikTok
Join Fan Lab