Anonymity, Good or bad Options

[Peter Damian]

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.

----- 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:

[pietkuip]

It gets tricky when some editors want it both ways...

I am now blocked because I wrote that the author of a self-published source is a retired hotel manager (Jacob Truedson Demitz (T-H-L-K-D)).

This is supposed to be harassment of SergeWoodzing (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

And Fæ (T-C-L-K-R-D) supports my block - Mr. Van Haeften is also trying to have it both ways.

[TungstenCarbide]

It gets tricky when some editors want it both ways...

I am now blocked because I wrote that the author of a self-published source is a retired hotel manager (Jacob Truedson Demitz (T-H-L-K-D)).

This is supposed to be harassment of SergeWoodzing (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

And Fæ (T-C-L-K-R-D) supports my block - Mr. Van Haeften is also trying to have it both ways.

From what I understand Mr. Van Haeften likes it all kinds of ways.

But seriously, why are you wasting your time in that company?

Then along comes Baseball Bugs - a political buttsnorkler who hasn't created anything significant in recent history - calling for your ban.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[pietkuip]

But seriously, why are you wasting your time in that company?

Then along comes Baseball Bugs - a political buttsnorkler who hasn't created anything significant in recent history - calling for your ban.

Most hobbies are a waste of time. The only place where I am active on wikipedias is Commons, where the company is not that bad. And it is a useful source of free illustrations.

I will just watch the AN/I proceedings that Baseball Bugs initiated. The result does not matter that much to me. It will just be the usual defamation by anonymous cowards.

PS: Fæ has no problem with outing himself on Commons as "the UK GLAM programme leader" or "I am spending the weekend at at OTRS workshop, which I was part of organizing." But when someone he likes to get blocked says it, it is "outing".

This post has been edited by pietkuip: