Board Thread:DC Wiki Discussion/@comment-1738746-20151207230708/@comment-1738746-20151212040010

Waxify wrote: The thing with anonymous editing is that it's more likely that vandals will edit maliciously because, think about it, if you were intending to just blanking pages as fast as you could, would you really make an account just to do that? Go through the process of selecting a username, putting an email, decoding the captcha, and then verifying your email? It's just not convenient when you're vandalizing wikis. However, it is convenient for users who want to add content to a wiki but don't actually want to make an account because it's just a passing thing. Like, it's the same thing as with vandals. If you're just going to do a few edits it's far more convenient not to go through the whole process of signing up. On both sides it's a matter of convenience, just both sides have different intent. Just to clarify- I'm not asking for advice based on a lack of knowledge on the process on my half. This thread is to gather community opinions and work towards a consensus with how we should handle this situation ^__^ (p.s. You don't need to be email verified to start editing)

Today is officially a week since anon editing was opened up, so I've added the final stats on all anon edits we have. In my personal opinion, I'd like to wait another week and see how things go- looking at just this week, vandal edits have slowed down near the end, and it's possible they're occurring because of the novelty of returned anon editing. I highly value the small helpful edits anon editors make- to be fair, it doesn't take that much time to revert vandalism thanks to the rollback tool and just block them. My concern isn't the effort on my part, but that I don't want it to be a constant issue that this feature is bringing in more poor edits than good, as it brings down people's opinion of the wiki as a trustworthy source of information. Just my thoughts though.