Wikipedia talk:IP editors are human too

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives

Archive 1

Outdated study

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Requested move 4 June 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The request to rename this article to Wikipedia:IP editors are human too has been carried out.

If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

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

Or we could just require registration and lose 80% of the vandalism. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:40, 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

Support more accurate title. Rublov (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Comment. I assume the current title is purposely ironic. "IP editors" are obviously human; "IPs" are not. Station1 (talk) 19:13, 4 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

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