Forum:Restricting page creation to registered users?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Restricting page creation to registered users?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 6331 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Looking at special:recentchanges or special:newpages a large amount of slandanity pages created by IPs appear, which do no good to the Uncyclopedia. Very rare is it the case that a good article is created by an IP user. So should we restrict page creation (but not necessarily editing) to registered users? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 09:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Lets not forget that our favorite article Fisher Price was made by an anonymous IP (I would think). I myself made some good work as an anon IP ( Monster of the Week Reservoir Dogs ) I think we should just... assume - good - faith! (DUM DUM DUMDUM DE DUUUUMMMM) Mr. Briggs Inc. 10:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Eh?
I agree. We cannot get all wikipedia-like and disallow new page creation by IPs. It's a source of great articles along with the crap. We should accept the bad with the good. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 20:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Briggs and Dawg, of course. —rc (t) 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Ghelae has a point; I sit and watch recent changes and am forever dashing to QVFD etc. But if the admins are happy to huff all the shite as it comes in, then so much the merrier for all of us. Freemorpheme.gif 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we assume bad faith here. If leaving the anon-IPs visible as anon-IPs makes it easier for us to spot their edits, then we leave it that way. <mafia>Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.</mafia> --Carlb 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Against. Wikipedia took a huge blow when they decided to restrict page creation to registered users, and I feel the same would happen to us. Besides, they're not all that bad, are they? HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Face it - 99.99% of anon-IP users are utter idiots. Besides, what does it really take to get oneself registered? Almost nothing, except the efforts of coming up with a good username and a high-quality password. Actually, one can even skip those two things if lazy enough. Anon-IPs don't just create outright garbage - they recreate it, and unlike Wickedpedia, we can't just take useless sub-stubs, "place in under [our] pillows", and "wait for the magical fact-fairy [to] come and turn it into a real article" 1. So, what's really the point of enouraging those uncommitted pests of users to come around and ravage this wiki when we simple have the chance to throw them all out the window? There is simply no point in keeping the floodgate of vanity crufts and one-line trash wide open.
Really, I'd love to have the entire site semi-protected. -- The Colonel (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Related discussions

Against restriction.---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 13:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message

Let's not forget the fact that newly registered users do create useless pages as well.

I think the reason to have a welcome message is to make clear of what Uncyc is all about, but simply telling new users to read all those policy pages will not help anything at all - frankly, who is going to through all the trouble to swallow all that imformation anyway? What we really need is a threat, or more precisely, a list of common bannable offences. So, rather than hand out useless terms and conditions in fine prints, we just go and tell people that we don't want their "contributions" unless they are really worth reading. In that way, we can save a lot of time and energy on spotting and apprehending mischevious (or clueless) registered users.

-- The Colonel (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Utterly against restriction and/or threats. This is supposed to be a community, not an elitist clique (that's what IRC is for). Many users who turn up here need a "finding their feet" period to get used to our standards, practices, and humour. Handing out a "threat list" is possibly the most discouraging thing we could do at this point in their Uncyclopedia career. Our admins are efficient, knowledgeable people (*ahem*), and I really see no problems with our cruft management as it currently stands. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 09:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are not getting my arguements.
Firstly, let me explain why anon-IP users in general do not have positive effects on Uncyc as a community. Anon-IPs, needless to say, are anonymous users, who either refuse or are reluctant to register as a member. Now, how are you going to make a community out of such people when you can't even stay in touch with them through the use of talk pages and other Uncyc-based facilities? My IP is a transparent proxy server shared by thousands of my ISP's users. Now suppose I was not registered and you wanted to make an FYI on some important things that I had to keep in mind as a user - what would you do? Yes, you could use the IP's talk page but at the same time there was simply no guarantee that your message would get across because my IP was shared by a considerable amount of other users and by the time you put your stuff on the talk page the guy you wished to address to would probably be gone and the one who received your message would be yet another anonymous person who hadn't even made a single edit. Not every anon-IP is as pesky as they sound, but I can guarantee that they are, in every respect, a communication nightmare. If you are still not convinced, check this out.
Secondly, again, who is going to read through lengthy pages of policies just for the sake of having perhaps 5 minutes of fun? I am not saying that we should now go and scare the heck out of all newly registered users, but obviously there are blatantly stupid things they are not supposed to do and we have to tell them, in plain language, what the consequences are when they carry out such deeds. Really, what is the point of leaving a page totally blank, or writing things about a classmate, who is, in most cases, a non-notable individual? In fact, I have already put a short list of bannable offenses in my effort coordination page, and yet, people still come around and edit the main Australia article almost on a weekly basis, and at one point I had to put notice in some sections just to discourage some idiots from ever messing with them. Anyway, what is the real harm in telling people not to blank pages or make vanity crufts if they are not keen in to do such things?
Lastly (but not least), what is the point of enouraging anon-IPs to create new pages anyway? Because they can't even upload images? We are not charging anyone anything for being a registered member, are we?

-- The Colonel (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A thought - one that may even be almost rational

Whatever Wikipedia does, we should do the opposite of. So, if Wikipedia lets anyone create pages, we should not let anybody create pages, and visa versa. Or something. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 18:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • But Wikipedia doesn't let anyone create pages anymore. Mr. Briggs Inc. 19:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Eh?

My Solution

Ban everybody. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 20:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)