![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#1
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
I noticed the mail below on one of the Wiki-lists (public). It seemed immediately that there was much wrong with the logic, but I wonder what others think?
The first argument that occurred to me was that, if his argument was valid, then the same conclusion would apply to banks, public companies, charities and so forth. Yet we require public companies to publish the names of their directors, likewise charities. But that begs the question. Why do we require directors of companies, charities, etc to declare identities? [edit] On second thoughts, the analogy with companies and charities is imperfect, because of the point he makes about every action being transparent. QUOTE ----- Original Message ----- From: Happy Melon To: peterc@cix.compulink.co.uk ; Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia Cc: office@wikimedia.org.uk ; wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Functionaries-en] Edward Buckner/Peter Damian& W What possible need is there to know the personal life story of a community member in order to "scrutinise" their actions on-wiki? In an environment where every action is quite deliberately laid open for transparent 'scrutiny', *precisely* to engender a culture where members are judged on their actions, not any personal characteristic? Why is it any more important that the name, birthday and home address of the admin who blocks "established editors" is known publically, than the same of the admin who 'only' blocks IPs? Why does knowing the marital status of your arbitrators help you or anyone else to "scrutinise" their behaviour? There is absolutely no justification from the "ends" of outing to justify any means. Conversely, those members of the community who *have* "got further up the hierarchy" have done so with the support and endorsement of the community which is *well aware* of their pseudonymous status, anonymous or otherwise. They have done so in line with Foundation policy, which is fully protective of that anonymity. They have done so in a *legal* environment which is sympathetic to people's right to privacy and comes down hard on people who harrass others by breaking it. The entire structure is established, with increasingly broad mandates, on the basis that pseudonymity is acceptable and to be protected. What right does any single person have to declare that establishment 'wrong' and unilaterally overturn it? Of course, I'm writing from an anonymous email account with a pseudonym that has always been in place, and probably always will. I've had things oversighted on five different projects, and removed from places where 'oversight' is far from standard practice, to protect that anonymity. Is the fact that you don't know my name, address and date of birth a concern to you? Is the fact that I've written code for the cluster, or administrated three ArbCom elections, a problem for you? Would you sleep better at night if I *hadn't* once had the Oversight bit? Please do tell me, how would your "scrutiny" of my actions be improved if my personal life was public record? --HM This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
![]() ![]() |
Emperor |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,871 Joined: Member No.: 2,042 ![]() |
Interesting topic. I don't think it's been discussed in at least a few months.
My feeling is that it's safer to remain anonymous, and if all one is doing is editing wiki articles then it's fine. Leadership roles like checkuser and ArbCom it's more of a gray area; I'd feel more comfortable if those people had real names. They've abused their power so many times, and launched so many weird "investigations" where they basically started files on regular users, that they've proven anons cannot be trusted with those tools. |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 ![]() |
I noticed the mail below on one of the Wiki-lists (public). It seemed immediately that there was much wrong with the logic, but I wonder what others think? The first argument that occurred to me was that, if his argument was valid, then the same conclusion would apply to banks, public companies, charities and so forth. Yet we require public companies to publish the names of their directors, likewise charities. But that begs the question. Why do we require directors of companies, charities, etc to declare identities? The identities of officers and board member of non-profits are made available to the public, of course, because they hold a position of trust in relation to public granted tax advantages of their organizations. So for instance the Reason Foundation which Godwin writes for may claim that it is "neither right nor left" but a review of the Board say otherwise including de-regulation worshiping "Founder" and a billionaire Koch Brother (fund Tea Party and/attack on public education.) This kind of information can be useful to the public. But still hundreds of thousands ordinary people serve as trustees board members and officers. It is common (at least in US) that filings provide only the charity office or sometimes only a lawyers office under "address." No one expects these citizen volunteer board members to expose themselves to any unneeded intrusion. If for instance the trustees of a family planning clinic become the targets of a person seeking information to find them such as home address, where they work, what bar they hang out at, or when they plan to attend a reunion that person is likely to quickly come to the attention of federal law enforcement. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |