Anonymity, Good or bad Options

[lilburne]

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.

So is Google Image Search.

[HRIP7]

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.

It's interesting how Wikipedians' privacy is holy, but that of BLP subjects is shat on by anonymous editors.

We are seeing the effect here of editors writing the policies and skewing them in their favour. It's not like Wikimedia policies are a social contract negotiated between Wikimedians and the people they are writing about, or posting pictures of. Only one side turned up for the negotiations – Wikimedia editors. Editors naturally want as many rights as possible, and as few ways to be held personally accountable as possible. As Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects gain more and more importance, this imbalance will increasingly become an issue, and rightly so.

[TungstenCarbide]

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

is there some compelling reason to do so? We all love juicy gossip but there's his x and child to consider.

[Kelly Martin]

It's interesting how Wikipedians' privacy is holy, but that of BLP subjects is shat on by anonymous editors.

Yes, this irony, and the fervor with which they maintain it, is key to understanding the Wikipedia hypocrisy.

[Emperor]

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

is there some compelling reason to do so? We all love juicy gossip but there's his x and child to consider.

Well hey, then let's do this Wikipedia-style. We assemble a few dozen "functionaries", known or anonymous people we know we can trust because of their history here. Then we discuss it via an email list or private forum.

The more people we have looking at this info and discussing it, the more likely we are to come to an ethical decision, after all.

[EricBarbour]

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)

HE evidently doesn't understand HIS OWN position very well. In other words, this is typical Jimbo-slime, calculated to avoid criticism and attacks upon himself. It's vague and limp, making it difficult to turn into a "policy" which might be used to force out some of his Magic Project's worst actors.

He NEEDS his trolls. They do all the "free" labor. There's a hidden cost, but Jimbo don't care, it ain't comin' outta HIS pocket!

Well hey, then let's do this Wikipedia-style. We assemble a few dozen "functionaries", known or anonymous people we know we can trust because of their history here. Then we discuss it via an email list or private forum.

The entire Internet, in a nutshell. (Hey, so just how many admin socks does Poetlister have on Encyc nowadays, anyway?)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 19th February 2012, 10:02pm

[Fusion]

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.

So is Google Image Search.

Only if you have no concerns about copyright. But then most people seem not to care about such in any case.

[lilburne]

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.

So is Google Image Search.

Only if you have no concerns about copyright. But then most people seem not to care about such in any case.

The same is true of Commons. There is no trail to show that the license on Commons is correct. That is primarily why Mila is getting queries for reuse on her talk page. Some one wants to obtain verification of the license.

I had images in a book published last year 250 pages with two images per page. The company sorting out the rights sourced the images from flickr and alamy. None were taken from Commons as the rights issue is too confused. You have some anonymous uploader skimming flickr content, a bot that says it was licensed on X date, but was it, and the flickr account is deleted or abandoned. No publisher is going to touch Commons.

[Selina]

But Flickr is anonymous too? *confused*

[thekohser]

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

is there some compelling reason to do so? We all love juicy gossip but there's his x and child to consider.

But the judge already kept confidential from the public file any of the information that was deemed to bring any undue embarrassment to the child. As for the ex-wife, a former employee of Bomis, isn't her portion of the sum of human knowledge as important as Jimbo's, especially when you consider she was the petitioner and he the respondent in the case?

[Emperor]

The entire Internet, in a nutshell. (Hey, so just how many admin socks does Poetlister have on Encyc nowadays, anyway?)

I don't comment on user identities.

Why, have you stopped by lately?

[Selina]

so somewhere in the region of over 9000 I am guessing

[lilburne]

But Flickr is anonymous too? *confused*

Flickr might be anonymous but there are a number of ways by which you can contact the photographer. When the uploader on Commons has taken something from a flickr account then you have another hoop to jump through before you can ascertain whether the license is valid. Often the tie between the image and the uploader is broken. If the flickr account was abandoned, or the account deleted, then there is little chance of contacting the photog. So why search Commons? Go to flickr directly or a stock agency.