 | This is an essay on attitudes towards unregistered users. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: With some exceptions, unregistered users can edit articles and participate on talk page, and their input helps build consensus, however, there are a great many disadvantages to not having a registered account, both in policy and in practice. |
Unregistered users are those identified only by their IP address. The occasionally used term "anonymous editor" is misleading; in fact, the IP address provides a rough geographical location of the editor. While the people who use the IP address to edit are certainly human and add value to Wikipedia, the IP address itself isn't an account, isn't the same as a single person, and can't be treated exactly the same as a registered account in a few key areas.
Studies in 2004 and 2007 found that most vandalism (80%) is generated by IP address editors. While 80% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism, the fact that the vast majority of vandalism does come from unregistered users requires reasonable limitations to what IP address editors can do.[1] The risk of sockpuppetry and vandalism is high enough that unregistered users are not allowed to create any article (a decision that followed the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident), nor participate in Request for Adminship voting, many Arbitration discussions, any article that is semi-protected, and other venues. While every edit should stand on its own merits, there are important and valid reasons for having some restrictions on unregistered users, primarily centering around the idea of accountability.
- ^ See: Opabinia regalis' studies, Feb 2007