Anonymity, Good or bad Options

[thekohser]

Last I checked Greg didn't put his name behind any of his edits in quite some time.

My clients have no doubts that my User names are tied to me, and that's really the only "proof" that they or I need. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your rabid and irrational need.

[radek]

Last I checked Greg didn't put his name behind any of his edits in quite some time.

My clients have no doubts that my User names are tied to me, and that's really the only "proof" that they or I need. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your rabid and irrational need.

Let me be a bit more rabid and irrational: how about your clients competitors? What proof do they get?

As much as you try and fool yourself that your case is different, and that something is "ok" for you, but not for others, it's really not. "Anonymity for me but not for thee to a tee".

[Cedric]

This is some fucked up shit - when people who run anonymous sock puppet farms (for money, again NTTWWT) start pontificating against people who don't run sock puppet farms, don't do it for money but simply wish to have a semblance of anonymity to protect themselves from harassment.

As someone who has been actually harassed "IRL" by a stalker (by legal definition, not the idiotic wikipediot one), I have always found this argument singularly unimpressive. Editing an encyclopedia is not generally the sort of activity that makes you prone to being a stalker victim. If WP had required real names before I started editing there, I probably would have given it. Besides, stalkers are very irrational people; there is little accounting for why they choose one potential victim over another.

[thekohser]

Let me be a bit more rabid and irrational: how about your clients (sic) competitors? What proof do they get?

My clients' competitors don't need any proof of the provenance of an acceptable, neutrally-written, factual, encyclopedic account of my client that's published in a non-profit, tax-exempt encyclopedia that helps every single human being freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's what I'm doing, and if a client's competitor has a problem with that, then they're simply being irrational.

[SB_Johnny]

As much as you try and fool yourself that your case is different, and that something is "ok" for you, but not for others, it's really not. "Anonymity for me but not for thee to a tee".

To be fair, Greg tried to edit as himself, but was driven underground because Jimbo said it should be so.

[radek]

Let me be a bit more rabid and irrational: how about your clients (sic) competitors? What proof do they get?

My clients' competitors don't need any proof of the provenance of an acceptable, neutrally-written, factual, encyclopedic account of my client that's published in a non-profit, tax-exempt encyclopedia that helps every single human being freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's what I'm doing, and if a client's competitor has a problem with that, then they're simply being irrational.

Oh for fuck's sake. With you editing via anonymous sock puppets, the only guarantee that your edits are "acceptable, neutrally-written, factual, encyclopedic accounts" is your say so-so. Now, it may very well be that that is indeed the case, but ... we can't know that for sure can we? The whole point of gomi's post was that people need to take a responsibility by putting their names behind their edits - your sock accounts most certainly don't do that.

If a person asserts that their anonymous edits are fine they're still editing anonymously aren't they? And hell yes, if I was one of your client's competitor's I might have a problem with what you're doing - because you're doing it anonymously. That's not being "irrational", that's just called being a business. You can call everyone who disagrees with you "irrational" or "rabid" or "mentally deficient" and post funny youtube videos, but at the end of the day you're still the one who's being a moronic twit. And a grade-A hypocrite and asshole.

If I work for a politician, and I edit Wikipedia via anonymous accounts on their behalf, and then come on WR and assure everyone that it's all good because the politician I work for knows which accounts are mine, and of course my edits are "acceptable, neutrally-written and factual" (the number of of people who DON'T believe that about themselves is epsilon, where epsilon is defined as the smallest number such that epsilon>0)...

How is that any different? And then I start pontificating how people should edit with only eponymous accounts? Seriously Greg, you're oozing with hypocrisy here.

SB Johnny - I don't have any problem with greg editing "underground". I do have a problem with him getting all sanctimonious about anonymous editing when he edits the site via anonymous sock puppets himself.

This post has been edited by radek: Mon 16th January 2012, 7:07pm

[timbo]

I'm pretty much in agreement with Gomi on the anonymity question but more than a little amused that he or she in a position of high authority and some public figurehood here has zero information available as to their own identity.

But yeah, anyway:

1. People should have to provide their real name to edit at Wikipedia.

2. Only registered editors should be able to edit.

3. Even failing adoption of these principles, anybody old enough to grow body hair shouldn't be editing Wikipedia without making their identity known. They should be responsible — morally and legally — for their words.

very truly yours,

Tim Davenport
5010 NW Shasta Ave.
Corvallis, OR 97339

MutantPop@aol.com

This post has been edited by timbo: Tue 17th January 2012, 2:41am

[EricBarbour]

1. People should have to provide their real name to edit at Wikipedia.

2. Only registered editors should be able to edit.

3. Even failing adoption of these principles, anybody old enough to grow body hair shouldn't be editing Wikipedia without making their identity known. They should be responsible — morally and legally — for their words.

Sir, I DEFY you to post this on Jayjg's or Cirt's talkpages.

[thekohser]

...And hell yes, if I was one of your client's competitor's I might have a problem...

I'd say the biggest problem you'd have would be the fact that you're running a business that doesn't know the difference between a possessive and a plural.

[timbo]

1. People should have to provide their real name to edit at Wikipedia.

2. Only registered editors should be able to edit.

3. Even failing adoption of these principles, anybody old enough to grow body hair shouldn't be editing Wikipedia without making their identity known. They should be responsible — morally and legally — for their words.

Sir, I DEFY you to post this on Jayjg's or Cirt's talkpages.

We all make our own choices, eh?

I don't know the situation of the former but I will say in the latter's defense that he did take on a highly litigious subject and I can understand a necessity in dodging bullets in his very specific case.

Cirt is topic banned off Scientology and new religious movements, broadly construed, and has been stripped of his administrative tools, so you might as well rail against the corruption of the Ulysses S. Grant administration or the environmental danger of whale oil lamps as soon as beat on him anymore.

It's a pity, Cirt was one of the fairest closers of any of the admins at AfD — although Ritzman and Kudpung are excellent as well.

t

This post has been edited by timbo: Tue 17th January 2012, 7:03am

[Fusion]

...And hell yes, if I was one of your client's competitor's I might have a problem...

I'd say the biggest problem you'd have would be the fact that you're running a business that doesn't know the difference between a possessive and a plural.

Radek's first language is not English. How many people here speak his language as well as he speaks English?

[thekohser]

...And hell yes, if I was one of your client's competitor's I might have a problem...

I'd say the biggest problem you'd have would be the fact that you're running a business that doesn't know the difference between a possessive and a plural.

Radek's first language is not English. How many people here speak his language as well as he speaks English?

Fair enough. Then, I'd say that my clients' competitors could rather easily solve their "problem" by hiring Wikipedia Review for themselves!

[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: Wed 25th January 2012, 5:16pm

[SB_Johnny]

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.

Yah, from what I understand Mr. Van Haeften likes it all kinds of ways.

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

from your talkpage, I see Baseball Bugs - a political buttsnorkler who hasn't created anything significant in recent history - calling for your ban.

And there's the heroic BB asking around for nails so he can get that coffin closed up tight!

[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: Wed 25th January 2012, 6:14pm

[Peter Damian]

Well Jimbo has spoken (see below). What he is suggesting is that linking to publicly available items like Facebook, personal blogs, interviews in mainstream media etc may not be the sort of harassment and danger to personal security that some Wikipedians think it is. And I think he is right.

I don't think you understand my position very well, then. I think I'm far more concerned about anonymous and pseudonymous editors than either ArbCom or the community at large. I think that if I'm out of step with the community and Arbcom, it is in precisely the opposite direction that you suggest. I think that outing is a very serious issue, that privacy is very important. I further think that it is undermined by idiotic policies that suggest that posting information that's publicly available is somehow a privacy violation. That approach undermines the ethical case for privacy in a very damaging way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 19th February 2012, 11:39am

[thekohser]

Well Jimbo has spoken (see below). What he is suggesting is that linking to publicly available items like Facebook, personal blogs, interviews in mainstream media etc may not be the sort of harassment and danger to personal security that some Wikipedians think it is. And I think he is right.

I don't think you understand my position very well, then. I think I'm far more concerned about anonymous and pseudonymous editors than either ArbCom or the community at large. I think that if I'm out of step with the community and Arbcom, it is in precisely the opposite direction that you suggest. I think that outing is a very serious issue, that privacy is very important. I further think that it is undermined by idiotic policies that suggest that posting information that's publicly available is somehow a privacy violation. That approach undermines the ethical case for privacy in a very damaging way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess it would be okay for me to post all of Jimbo's divorce records, then?

[Emperor]

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.

yes Wikipedia is cheap but if you shell out some money you could be rocking a cool model airplane or something.

[lilburne]

I don't think you understand my position very well, then. I think I'm far more concerned about anonymous and pseudonymous editors than either ArbCom or the community at large. I think that if I'm out of step with the community and Arbcom, it is in precisely the opposite direction that you suggest. I think that outing is a very serious issue, that privacy is very important. I further think that it is undermined by idiotic policies that suggest that posting information that's publicly available is somehow a privacy violation. That approach undermines the ethical case for privacy in a very damaging way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess it would be okay for me to post all of Jimbo's divorce records, then?

Well he's consistent, and there is some logic there too. If one says all of that publicly available private information is off linits where does it end?

Most of the BLPs are a collection of publicly available private information. Where some celeb's kids go to school, where there live, who they might have played away from home with, which bathhouses they might have frequented.