"logged-in only" editing
I'd reject it too, off hand. But that's without any factual basis. I'm very interested to see what metrics follow from logged-in only editing.
For anonymous creation, we collected some statistics. Apparently, 55 to 75% of articles newly created by anonymous users are speedy deletion material, but the percentage is the same for the users who just registered. In other words, the usefulness depends only on the experience of the user, not on whether he/she is logged in. There are of course other issues like for instance impossibility to communicate with a dyunamical ip and others.
Do you have a link to that data? I'd like to have it bookmarked for further reference.
That's one nail in the coffin... suggests to me that trying logged-in only editing isn't worth the trouble.
Would Russian be ok? Otherwise, I can translate it, but the translation will take some time.
Now also read Eric's post below. I will try to translate quickly.
I'd really love to read that as well... and since the amount of Russian I know will fit in a thimble (mostly names of food), a quickie translation would be great... even if you just ran it through google translate for a first pass...?
A translation would help. But even just the raw numbers should be understandable, no? Either way, we'd appreciate any information you can give us.
OK, I post it here, please feel free to move to an appropriate place.
For the record, the whole discussion (in Russian): ru:Википедия:Обсуждение правил/Запрет на создание новых статей анонимными участниками. The statistics are summarized in the preamble.
Statistics 1: ru:Участник:Skydrinker/Анонимы и новые статьи. Summary: User Skydrinker monitored over the weekend 12/13.01.10 newly created articles (six times, different times of the day). In total, he looked at 300 articles; of these 300, 72 articles were created by unregistered users (24%). Out of these 72, 61 (84.7%) were speedy deletion material. To be precise, 8 - nonsense, 6 - empty, 19 - copyvio, 7 - obvious vandalism, 12 - not notable, 7 - spam or ads, 2 - not in Russian. Eventually, 6 out of these 61 have been improved by experienced users; 3 speedy deletion reviews were contested and sent to usual deletion review. Another 11 (=72 - 61) articles did not qualify for speedy deletion and eventually have been improved as a part of regular flagged revision procedure.
(to be continued)
Statistics 2: ru:Участник:Шуфель/Статистика (новых статей). 460 articles created in the period 22.12.09-31.12.09 have been monitored. Eventually, 122 articles have been deleted (8 be deletion review, others by speedy deletion process). Here is the summary:
| user class | articles created | % of total | deleted | % of created | flagged | %(flagged/all) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ip | 127 | 28% | 80 | 63% | 29 | 62% |
| not-autoconf | 42 | 9% | 29 | 69% | 8 | 62% |
| user | 106 | 23% | 12 | 11% | 48 | 51% |
| autoeditor | 83 | 18% | 1 | 1% | 81 | 99% |
| editor | 95 | 21% | 0 | 0% | 95 | 100% |
| sysop | 7 | 2% | 0 | 0% | 7 | 100% |
| Total | 460 | 100 % | 122 | 27 % | 268 | 79 % |
The conclusion is that the quality of articles created by unregistered users is virtually the same as the quality of articles created by non-autoconfirmed users.