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:

[mbz1]

An interesting conversation that really took place at AN/I



This post has been edited by mbz1:

[jd turk]

An interesting conversation that really took place at AN/I...

And that brings me back around to why anonymity is absolutely necessary. Some people are nutcase stalkers, and I'd venture a guess that Wikipedia has a higher percentage than an average sampling.

[dogbiscuit]

An interesting conversation that really took place at AN/I...

And that brings me back around to why anonymity is absolutely necessary. Some people are nutcase stalkers, and I'd venture a guess that Wikipedia has a higher percentage than an average sampling.

Have you ever made the mistake of gesticulating at an idiot driver who then takes exception? Does that make it appropriate to remove number plates from cars?

The reality is that rather than anonymity you need responsibility. If people are only allowed to post supposedly reliable information when they are certain that their identity is likely to be traced, then you have achieved the same ends (as 99% of the supposed nutters are not nutters but simply nasty people who enjoy the baiting). In the real world you don't opt out of owning a birth certificate because WP:OTHERNUTTERSEXIST.

While there is no reason to publish your ID, it is reasonable to suggest that everyone who operates on the Internet on responsible sites should lodge an ID with a responsible controlling body (M$ passport does not cut it). So Wikipedia could have anonymity with traceability.

[radek]

An interesting conversation that really took place at AN/I...

And that brings me back around to why anonymity is absolutely necessary. Some people are nutcase stalkers, and I'd venture a guess that Wikipedia has a higher percentage than an average sampling.

Have you ever made the mistake of gesticulating at an idiot driver who then takes exception? Does that make it appropriate to remove number plates from cars?

The reality is that rather than anonymity you need responsibility. If people are only allowed to post supposedly reliable information when they are certain that their identity is likely to be traced, then you have achieved the same ends (as 99% of the supposed nutters are not nutters but simply nasty people who enjoy the baiting). In the real world you don't opt out of owning a birth certificate because WP:OTHERNUTTERSEXIST.

While there is no reason to publish your ID, it is reasonable to suggest that everyone who operates on the Internet on responsible sites should lodge an ID with a responsible controlling body (M$ passport does not cut it). So Wikipedia could have anonymity with traceability.

This is a pretty interesting question. You got your "anonymous cowards" who evade responsibility behind anonymity. And you got your crazy stalkers who harass the hell out of anyone who tries to edit non-anonymously.

I'm not sure your comparison of drivers and license plates is valid. If I flip off a driver on the highway the chances that they'll come after me for that is actually pretty small. So the cost of me having an identifiable license plate is not that large. And the benefit of having someone who, say, is involved in a hit and run, tracked down and held accountable is quite substantial. In a world where you encounter actual crazies rarely people should be non-anonymous.

The problem is that Wikipedia is not that world. As the OP said, it really is full of psychos. If somehow I knew that pissing somebody off on the highway caused them to start stalking me, you better believe I'd remove my license plate and support others in doing the same.

Accountability is important but so is personal safety. And Wikipedia fails at both - somehow it manages to maximize the worst of both world; lots of non-accountable psychos and lots of normal folks getting harassed because they chose to put their name behind their username account.

[gomi]

And that brings me back around to why anonymity is absolutely necessary. Some people are nutcase stalkers, and I'd venture a guess that Wikipedia has a higher percentage than an average sampling.

Accountability is important but so is personal safety. And Wikipedia fails at both - somehow it manages to maximize the worst of both world; lots of non-accountable psychos and lots of normal folks getting harassed because they chose to put their name behind their username account.

You are both lame fucking juvenile idiots.

The world is full of reporters who write controversial stories, social and political activists who take controversial stands, demi-celebrities attracting unwanted attention, and so forth. Do any of them demand anonymity in their work? No.

Grown-ups, when writing an encyclopedia, or something purporting to be one, should be willing to take responsibility for what they say. An encyclopedia is not a chat room. It is not a social-networking site. It is not a teen-age hang-out. It is a place for responsible people to write responsible articles on well-accepted, responsible subjects, and take fucking responsibility for them. Don't you get it? The fact that you Wikipidiot dipshits are unwilling to take responsibility is the sentinel reason that Wikipedia is not and will never be an "encyclopedia".

If people have to think for two and a half seconds before hitting "Post" about the consequences of writing "ABE LINCOLNS SUX TEH DICKS" or some slander about their 9th grade teacher, perhaps they won't do it -- or will think twice the second time they do it.

Wikipedia stopped should have stopped being an Internet chat room some time ago, morons.

[thekohser]

You are both lame fucking juvenile idiots.

The world is full of reporters who write controversial stories, social and political activists who take controversial stands, demi-celebrities attracting unwanted attention, and so forth. Do any of them demand anonymity in their work? No.

Grown-ups, when writing an encyclopedia, or something purporting to be one, should be willing to take responsibility for what they say. An encyclopedia is not a chat room. It is not a social-networking site. It is not a teen-age hang-out. It is a place for responsible people to write responsible articles on well-accepted, responsible subjects, and take fucking responsibility for them. Don't you get it? The fact that you Wikipidiot dipshits are unwilling to take responsibility is the sentinel reason that Wikipedia is not and will never be an "encyclopedia".

If people have to think for two and a half seconds before hitting "Post" about the consequences of writing "ABE LINCOLNS SUX TEH DICKS" or some slander about their 9th grade teacher, perhaps they won't do it -- or will think twice the second time they do it.

Wikipedia stopped being an Internet chat room some time ago, morons.

It's times like these that I love, absolutely love Gomi.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

[radek]

You are both lame fucking juvenile idiots.

The world is full of reporters who write controversial stories, social and political activists who take controversial stands, demi-celebrities attracting unwanted attention, and so forth. Do any of them demand anonymity in their work? No.

Grown-ups, when writing an encyclopedia, or something purporting to be one, should be willing to take responsibility for what they say. An encyclopedia is not a chat room. It is not a social-networking site. It is not a teen-age hang-out. It is a place for responsible people to write responsible articles on well-accepted, responsible subjects, and take fucking responsibility for them. Don't you get it? The fact that you Wikipidiot dipshits are unwilling to take responsibility is the sentinel reason that Wikipedia is not and will never be an "encyclopedia".

If people have to think for two and a half seconds before hitting "Post" about the consequences of writing "ABE LINCOLNS SUX TEH DICKS" or some slander about their 9th grade teacher, perhaps they won't do it -- or will think twice the second time they do it.

Wikipedia stopped being an Internet chat room some time ago, morons.

It's times like these that I love, absolutely love Gomi.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

Except that WR itself is not exactly known for its non-anonymous commentators. In fact, you (and maybe a couple others) aside pretty much anyone on here who's non-anonymous is so because they identified themselves on Wiki. The rest, including the mods, is anonymous.

This seems to be a "anonymity for me but not for thee" kind of sentiment. Eh.

Wikipedia is what it is because of anonymity. Take that away and it wouldn't be Wikipedia.

You could fork it first. People have tried.

My problem with the anonymous culture isn't so much even with the community anymore. It's with the supposed charity workers sitting all cushy up in the Foundation offices, making money hand over fist pretending that the output of this community is a legitimate reference work.

The thing is that it's pretty much the bad equilibrium of a Prisoner's Dilemma game. All the moral issues, and wishful thinking about how it would work if Wikipedia wasn't so messed up aside, I think it's pretty widely believed that anyone who edits Wikipedia non-anonymously is a bit foolish, or at least they were quite naive when they first created their account.

[No one of consequence]

Wikipedia is what it is because of anonymity. Take that away and it wouldn't be Wikipedia.

You could fork it first. People have tried.

My problem with the anonymous culture isn't so much even with the community anymore. It's with the supposed charity workers sitting all cushy up in the Foundation offices, making money hand over fist pretending that the output of this community is a legitimate reference work.

The thing is that it's pretty much the bad equilibrium of a Prisoner's Dilemma game. All the moral issues, and wishful thinking about how it would work if Wikipedia wasn't so messed up aside, I think it's pretty widely believed that anyone who edits Wikipedia non-anonymously is a bit foolish, or at least they were quite naive when they first created their account.

The question that I have is, how do non-anonymous authors and reporters handle harassment in real life?

Take for example the case of D___ M____, a movie producer with a thin skin and hot temper. He decided he didn't like how his article was being handled, so he went after not only the administrator who offended him, but also the administrator's wife and family.

Suppose instead that Mr. M was offended by a report on TMZ or Entertainment Weekly and took off after the reporter. What kind of protections are in place? Do those organizations provide body guards, legal help, unlisted phone numbers and work-only cell phones, or other protections? Or maybe the offended parties practice self-restraint, knowing that attacking the wife of a reporter for a major media outlet could itself be reported, or at least shared within the small circle of entertainment reporters leading to unfavorable coverage from other media outlets.

Wikipedia editors are also susceptible to attacks that just don't work on authors and reporters, such as contacting the employer and asking "was your employee on the clock when he wrote this about me?"

I don't know the right answers, but it certainly seems to be the case that Wikipedia editors are more vulnerable than reporters and book authors would be, at least under some circumstances.

If I ever went back to Wikipedia, I would face a real dilemma. Either use my real name from day 1, which would necessitate completely avoiding certain topic areas and people, or going starting over and going completely anonymous. It's just not worth the hassle to have someone call me on my personal phone and complain about something I did on line.

Responding to the argument that editors should not be able to be judged or banned in quasi-judicial proceedings managed by anonymous people, remember that the worst they can do is kick you off of one web site. If you are so invested that that by itself ruins your life, or even your day, then you need to turn the computer off and find a real charity to volunteer at.