Timeline for Are edits from anonymous users worth the trouble?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Feb 15, 2016 at 8:16 | answer | added | Máté Juhász | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 9, 2016 at 0:46 | comment | added | fixer1234 | The percentage is low, but every once in a while I see good, useful edits submitted anonymously. As a matter of principle, though, I think it would be better if edits required some "skin in the game", i.e., originate from a user account. "worth the trouble?" can be addressed with the skip button. | |
| Feb 8, 2016 at 21:35 | comment | added | Faheem Mitha | Ok. I think these policies are SE wide. Would SE even consider modifying them selectively on a per-site basis? Also, there doesn't seem to be a proper mechanism of submitting such proposals to SE that I am aware of. I too (in U&L) have suggested changes that people agreed with (based on upvotes), but then nothing happened. See Add suggestions in user template about mentioning OS/distribution and version for example. | |
| Feb 8, 2016 at 17:15 | comment | added | Ben N | @FaheemMitha I'm thinking that such a change might be a good idea here. I'm trying to see if anybody has a good reason for allowing anonymous suggested edits despite all the problems mentioned above. | |
| Feb 8, 2016 at 13:17 | comment | added | Faheem Mitha | I'm unclear on the purpose of this question. Is the end goal to change SE policy? | |
| Feb 8, 2016 at 3:16 | history | asked | Ben N | CC BY-SA 3.0 |