Admin accountability vs stalking Options Rating

[blissyu2]

Just the poll really. Wikipedia claims that people like Daniel Brandt should be banned indefinitely (and hence everyone who supports him, here or elsewhere) because he is really stalking people. Yet newspapers don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with it, and it helps to catch out people like Essjay. Is there ever a case where it is wrong?

People like Amorrow, on the other hand, seemed to many of us here to really be stalking people, and using the guise of admin accountability.

How do we know the difference?

[Jonny Cache]

Just the poll really. Wikipedia claims that people like Daniel Brandt should be banned indefinitely (and hence everyone who supports him, here or elsewhere) because he is really stalking people. Yet newspapers don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with it, and it helps to catch out people like Essjay. Is there ever a case where it is wrong?

People like Amorrow, on the other hand, seemed to many of us here to really be stalking people, and using the guise of admin accountability.

How do we know the difference?

When it comes to issues like this, I simply ask myself the question : What would you expect of an ordinary encyclopedia, dictionary, or other reference work? Then I go to my bookshelf, open up the first one that comes to hand, leaf through the front matter, and the answer is revealed to me. Maybe Wikipedians don't have bookshelves, books, all that kind of nonsense.

Jonny

[Elara]

I expect an encyclopedia to have the real names of who contributes, and I expect said authors to be competent in the fields they write about.

In that light, Wikipedia is so far from an encyclopedia that it's laughworthy, and thus, I really don't like the idea of going after identities. I don't give a shit. If I ever ran, I'd be happy to hand out whatever information people wanted -- but then again, I do that already.

Some of these people are anonymous because if they weren't someone would pay them a visit in the middle of the night and beat the shit out of them...but then again, that's true for at least one person HERE, too.

[blissyu2]

...but then again, that's true for at least one person HERE, too.

Who?

...

I think that what Elara says is worth noting. On the internet, people are *USUALLY* anonymous, especially with regards to chats and message forums. There have been many cases of cyber stalking, with examples of people getting raped or murdered, as well as falling victim to various malicious pranks. Generally speaking, it is a good idea to keep your identity secret, and only to give it out to people who you trust (some people would even say not to tell anyone).

Wikipedia is on the internet, and it really DOES operate like a chat room. There are talk pages on articles and user pages and user talk pages, as well as various discussion pages. If they were a professional product, I am not sure that they should have any of that - certainly not publicly available.

[Jonny Cache]

I think that what Elara says is worth noting. On the internet, people are *USUALLY* anonymous, especially with regards to chats and message forums. There have been many cases of cyber stalking, with examples of people getting raped or murdered, as well as falling victim to various malicious pranks. Generally speaking, it is a good idea to keep your identity secret, and only to give it out to people who you trust (some people would even say not to tell anyone).

Wikipedia is on the internet, and it really DOES operate like a chat room. There are talk pages on articles and user pages and user talk pages, as well as various discussion pages. If they were a professional product, I am not sure that they should have any of that — certainly not publicly available.

I think that this is a function of the parts of the Internet where one hangs out. NONE of the discussion lists where I used to spend a lot of my time used pseudonyms, and I did not run into this practice until I came to Wikipedia. Maybe things are different where you are, but when I turn on the 6 o'clock news in my area, there's more than anybody can stomach of crimes that are non-Internet-related. I think that what we are really seeing here is the fact that a quality encyclopedia CANNOT be written in a CB-handled chat-room environment, G'buddy.

Keep on truckin' ...

Jonny

[FCYTravis]

I'm fully in favor of requiring users to be non-anonymous. That doesn't mean publishing your address, home phone number and checking account information, but that does mean being a person who can be publicly accountable for their actions.

It would certainly do a great deal to eliminate random vandalism.

The corollary would be that a user's personal information would only be available to other people who have verified their own personal information. Non-registered users would simply see a tag that said "Verified User" or something to that end.

This post has been edited by FCYTravis: Sun 11th March 2007, 7:21am

[gomi]

I think that what Elara says is worth noting. On the internet, people are *USUALLY* anonymous, especially with regards to chats and message forums. There have been many cases of cyber stalking, with examples of people getting raped or murdered, as well as falling victim to various malicious pranks. Generally speaking, it is a good idea to keep your identity secret, and only to give it out to people who you trust ....

Let's just nip this meme in the bud. No one is going around raping and murdering Fox News journalists (alas), or New York Times journalists, or the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Further, no one is going to "cyber-stalk" a 16-year-old who posts drivel about Pokemon characters or Buffy episodes. No one is going to stalk the obscure 49-year-old scholar correcting a minor point in [[Centromere]] or [[Posterior clinoid processes]].

If anyone is going to be cyber-stalked, it is over stuff like [[Animal rights]] and [[Palestine]] and the like, where all the partisans have an axe to grind (especially those who say they don't). If the fear of recrimination is a disincentive for publishing on Wikipedia on these topics, I say more's the better. Current-events topics, biographies of living persons, and any topic with strong partisans (c.f. [[Creationism]]) should simply be locked down in a null state until the rabble generates a page that unbiased experts can agree is fair, or there should be no page at all.

The reason that Wikipedia won't institute a "real names" policy (unlike their current bizzarro and ineffective "credentials" discussion), is that if the edits could be tracked back to real people who nade them - like most work in the scholarly world -- most (sensible) editors simply wouldn't post at all, and Wikipedia would be a dry, empty husk (as opposed to the misinformation-filled bag of crap it is now).

[Jonny Cache]

I'm fully in favor of requiring users to be non-anonymous. That doesn't mean publishing your address, home phone number and checking account information, but that does mean being a person who can be publicly accountable for their actions.

It would certainly do a great deal to eliminate random vandalism.

The corollary would be that a user's personal information would only be available to other people who have verified their own personal information. Non-registered users would simply see a tag that said "Verified User" or something to that end.

The main reason that this will not happen — no matter how many news bubbles you read through the rest of Silly Season that start out "Wikipedia Hemi-Demi-Foundler To Do X" — is that the WikiPowersThatBee are totally symbiotic with their vandals. The vandals justify the unbridled powers of the constables, cops, custodians, whatever they're calling them this week.

This is hardly a new phenomenon ...

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 11th March 2007, 7:38am

[blissyu2]

The reason that Wikipedia won't institute a "real names" policy (unlike their current bizzarro and ineffective "credentials" discussion), is that if the edits could be tracked back to real people who nade them - like most work in the scholarly world -- most (sensible) editors simply wouldn't post at all, and Wikipedia would be a dry, empty husk (as opposed to the misinformation-filled bag of crap it is now).

I don't understand what you're saying there. Why wouldn't most editors post if they had to have their identity verified? If tomorrow Jimbo made the announcement that all Wikipedia accounts would be closed and they could only re-open with a validated identity, would people sign up again? I would bet that the vast majority WOULD.

I think that you have made several good points here too. Its a pity that this issue isn't discussed on Wikipedia.

[guy]

I'm not voting in this one. Given that most people on Wikipedia are anonymous (although in Wikispeak they're not if they have user names!) I can't see why good, conscientious admins should be outed in preference to prolific POV pushers who are not (and in many cases have applied and failed to become) admins. Whether there should be any anonymity is another matter. How about a proposal that anyone with more than say 5,000 Wikipedia edits is automatically notable and should get an article?

[JohnA]

There's a fine line between stalking and investigative journalism. As far as Essjay is concerned, he managed to create a false persona on Wikipedia and become a demi-god. Then he produced a second persona on Wikia which turned out to be largely false.

Even if I didn't have an opinion on real names for editors (and I do), I fail to see why bureaucrats and admins should be anonymous.

[Elara]

I'll say it more strongly.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. Just because you call something an encyclopedia doesn't make it one.

It's power comes from the fact that it has a high Google search ranking, and so the unwary and those ignorant of how it works use it. Are there some good articles, yeah. Lots. But there's also lots of crap, and lots of things not covered.

Accountability is, in all honesty, a wasted effort to pursue for the single reason that the problem with Wikipedia isn't accountability. The accountability issues have to do with edits to the articles, NOT with the admin actions.

Try to get it through your heads that no one really gives a shit if you get unfairly banned from Wikipedia anymore than if you get unfairly banned from Something Awful forums. The accountability is needed for those who create and edit articles, like the shit on Siegenthaler, or the criminally stupid edits to topics in psychology that just make my head hurt.

Human beings, as a rule, always act in a more aggressive, more cruel manner when anonymous and when there isn't a possibility of their actions being revealed...but stop, for a moment, and consider what would happen if these admins were "public".

Not a thing, really. You think if [insert name of admin you hate here] was "publically known" it would change anything? I do not. I think that what will happen instead is that the MediaWiki software would change so that accountability is even harder to prove. These are people who have no problems with making attack pages and then deleting them so that the average user can't see them. Don't think they wouldn't alter the way the software works so that you couldn't tell what admin did what.

Perhaps I'm merely cynical.

[Jonny Cache]

I'll say it more strongly.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. Just because you call something an encyclopedia doesn't make it one.

Its power comes from the fact that it has a high Google search ranking, and so the unwary and those ignorant of how it works use it. Are there some good articles, yeah. Lots. But there's also lots of crap, and lots of things not covered.

Accountability is, in all honesty, a wasted effort to pursue for the single reason that the problem with Wikipedia isn't accountability. The accountability issues have to do with edits to the articles, NOT with the admin actions.

Try to get it through your heads that no one really gives a shit if you get unfairly banned from Wikipedia anymore than if you get unfairly banned from Something Awful forums. The accountability is needed for those who create and edit articles, like the shit on Siegenthaler, or the criminally stupid edits to topics in psychology that just make my head hurt.

Human beings, as a rule, always act in a more aggressive, more cruel manner when anonymous and when there isn't a possibility of their actions being revealed ... but stop, for a moment, and consider what would happen if these admins were "public".

Not a thing, really. You think if [insert name of admin you hate here] was "publicly known" it would change anything? I do not. I think that what will happen instead is that the MediaWiki software would change so that accountability is even harder to prove. These are people who have no problems with making attack pages and then deleting them so that the average user can't see them. Don't think they wouldn't alter the way the software works so that you couldn't tell what admin did what.

Perhaps I'm merely cynical.

Ably said.

I think that we are all getting clear about the fact that the Wikipedia Website is not an encyclopedia. Under its current form of management it can never become a trustworthy source of information, much less a comprehensive work of reference. It can never live up to the standards of reliability and thoroughness that the public ordinarily understands as being implied by the very name encyclopedia. Thus it is a fraudulent claim for the Wikimedia Foundation to advertize its product as an encyclopedia.

The public has a right to investigate claims of suitability for a given purpose. Thus the public has a right to investigate the sources of statements made on the Wikipedia Website, no matter whether those statements are called article content, discussion content, essays, guidelines, or policies.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 11th March 2007, 8:25pm

[gomi]

The reason that Wikipedia won't institute a "real names" policy (unlike their current bizzarro and ineffective "credentials" discussion), is that if the edits could be tracked back to real people who made them - like most work in the scholarly world -- most (sensible) editors simply wouldn't post at all, and Wikipedia would be a dry, empty husk (as opposed to the misinformation-filled bag of crap it is now).

I don't understand what you're saying there. Why wouldn't most editors post if they had to have their identity verified? If tomorrow Jimbo made the announcement that all Wikipedia accounts would be closed and they could only re-open with a validated identity, would people sign up again? I would bet that the vast majority WOULD.

Well, since Wikipedia won't do it, this is an imponderable. My point is that pseudonymous people will often post things that they would never post if their name was associated with it, in the same way that they would not say most of those things to someone else's face.

[the fieryangel]

Not a thing, really. You think if [insert name of admin you hate here] was "publically known" it would change anything? I do not. I think that what will happen instead is that the MediaWiki software would change so that accountability is even harder to prove. These are people who have no problems with making attack pages and then deleting them so that the average user can't see them. Don't think they wouldn't alter the way the software works so that you couldn't tell what admin did what.

Perhaps I'm merely cynical.

I beg to difer here: finding out who anybody is goes a long way in explaining their bias', why they're pushing certain POV agendas and why they're shitty to certain people and nice to others.

It explains everything basically. It also means that when they say something mean or stupid or both, it might actually mean something in Real life activities and maybe they might actually STOP and consider the consequences before actually doing such things.

The thing is: with REAL scholarly work, you have to tell people who you are and why they should take you seriously BEFORE you make your pronouncements....and you have to bear the consequences of being wrong or unfair. With the WikiWay, you're allowed to say anything little thing and nobody ever holds you accountable.

Oh, and once little idea, Elara: did you ever stop to consider that maybe some of the people here actually tried posting under their own identities at WP and know what happens when people find out who you are at that congenial place?

Nobody stalks like the Wikiwiki people.....

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Sun 11th March 2007, 10:29pm

[Elara]

I do post under my own identity, and I could give a shit if people don't like me. But the thrust of what I'm saying is simple:

THESIS: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has anonymous editors and admins. If these people were known openly, we could verify their POV issues and make them accountable.

COUNTERTHESIS: Wikipedia is about as much an encyclopedia as I am a nuclear submarine. Making these people accountable won't mean jack or shit since you're relying on the fucking Foundation to verify this shit, the same foundation that thought Essjay was a professor and Fortune 500 CEO or whatever lie he made up.

CONCLUSIONS: It's a waste of time. Your time is better spent working on congresspeople to make it illegal for places such as Wikipedia to even HAVE anonymous editors or admins, with legal penalties against the Foundation.

[Kathryn Cramer]

I'll say it more strongly.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. Just because you call something an encyclopedia doesn't make it one.

Its power comes from the fact that it has a high Google search ranking, and so the unwary and those ignorant of how it works use it. Are there some good articles, yeah. Lots. But there's also lots of crap, and lots of things not covered.

Accountability is, in all honesty, a wasted effort to pursue for the single reason that the problem with Wikipedia isn't accountability. The accountability issues have to do with edits to the articles, NOT with the admin actions.

Try to get it through your heads that no one really gives a shit if you get unfairly banned from Wikipedia anymore than if you get unfairly banned from Something Awful forums. The accountability is needed for those who create and edit articles, like the shit on Siegenthaler, or the criminally stupid edits to topics in psychology that just make my head hurt.

Human beings, as a rule, always act in a more aggressive, more cruel manner when anonymous and when there isn't a possibility of their actions being revealed ... but stop, for a moment, and consider what would happen if these admins were "public".

Not a thing, really. You think if [insert name of admin you hate here] was "publicly known" it would change anything? I do not. I think that what will happen instead is that the MediaWiki software would change so that accountability is even harder to prove. These are people who have no problems with making attack pages and then deleting them so that the average user can't see them. Don't think they wouldn't alter the way the software works so that you couldn't tell what admin did what.

Perhaps I'm merely cynical.

Ably said.

I think that we are all getting clear about the fact that the Wikipedia Website is not an encyclopedia. Under its current form of management it can never become a trustworthy source of information, much less a comprehensive work of reference. It can never live up to the standards of reliability and thoroughness that the public ordinarily understands as being implied by the very name encyclopedia. Thus it is a fraudulent claim for the Wikimedia Foundation to advertize its product as an encyclopedia.

The public has a right to investigate claims of suitability for a given purpose. Thus the public has a right to investigate the sources of statements made on the Wikipedia Website, no matter whether those statements are called article content, discussion content, essays, guidelines, or policies.

Jonny

My immediate reaction to encountering Wikipedia Admins for the first time was to wonder who the heck they were (and who they thought they were).

[Jonny Cache]

My immediate reaction to encountering Wikipedia Admins for the first time was to wonder who the heck they were (and who they thought they were).

Well, we do know the answer to your second question, but some of us can write it only without vowels.

Jonny

[blissyu2]

Okay this is my bias on this topic:

1) For 8 months in 1995 I was stalked by a guy called "Rob" who said that he was going to kill me in training for a year long serial killing, the first day of which looked virtually identical to the events of the Port Arthur massacre, and I am personally in no doubt whatsoever that he was the man firing the gun that killed the 35 people there. This was a serious, and very traumatic event that changed my life. I am not in any way supportive of any form of stalking.

2) From late 2002 - early 2003 a girl called "Julie" cyber-stalked me in relation to some chat messages, basically because she thought that my RL name "Adrian" was a girl's name (I never said I was a girl, she just assumed). She put up an attacking web page about me, which included my photograph, full name, real address, real phone number, and called me a paedophile, insisting that I was currently on trial for raping her own 2 year old daughter (she didn't actually have a child at all). I tried to have her charged, but it turned out that her address, including which country she was in, was false, as was her name and all personal details. After a year of pursuing the case, it turned out that she was a serial cyber-stalker, and destroyed lives of many people at random. She was finally given restraining orders (but oddly no jail time) and forced to stop it.

So I know about stalking. I know about cyber-stalking. I would not support any form of it. I would not support any conduct that would in any ways encourage it, or lead to it.

I think that knowing someone's bias is important. It is important to note that whenever I am talking about stalking or cyber stalking, I am talking from a point of view of loathing it, hating anything that suggests that it is in any ways okay. But I am also talking from a perspective of knowing that many people who do this actually claim to be the victim. Both Rob and Julie claimed that I was stalking them! This isn't always the case, but it is often an excuse that is used by people, to help them to get away with these crimes. We must be very vigilent in determining that it is true.

This is relevant in the case of Wikipedia admins, because they do claim that they are victims, even when in fact they are distorting history and changing reality. We must be very certain that they are in fact victims. It is true that there are some cases where they are stalked - the Amorrow cases spring to mind. But by in large it is a quest for truth - and trying to find out the truth about something is NOT the same as stalking! There is a whopping great world of difference!

Whenever we see any work of knowledge, we need to determine its bias. Wikipedia's worst ever policy is the "Neutral Point of View" policy, because it is unattainable. Yes, blame Larry Sanger for this, because this wasn't Jimbo's idea. What they should instead have is a "State your Point of View" policy. It is fine to have bias, so long as we know what that bias is. Say who you are, so that we can research the author a bit, as well as the subject.

The thing is that if someone wrote about something which they have basically no bias about, what it is saying is that they really don't know much about it. I couldn't care less about the Telletubbies so I could write something relatively unbiased about them - but how useful is it? We need the bias, but what we don't need is for people to pretend that it is neutral.

No encyclopaedias are unbiased. No books are unbiased. But we can at least determine what the bias is.

We have seen on Wikipedia that US Congress has abused the system to try to make themselves look better, for political power, and possibly even winning a presidential race that could change world history. We have seen the dangers in people using bias. We have seen the dangers that the new rules on Wikipedia can bring.

By all means keep the lists of Simpsons, South Park and Spongebob episodes. I love those shows, and I love to use Wikipedia to look up things about them. But keep out of all of the political things - unless they can say who they are, so that we can determine what bias there is.

[Jonny Cache]

I tried to have her charged, but it turned out that her address, including which country she was in, was false, as was her name and all personal details.

Let me get this straight. You believe that this person was responsible for her online actions, that you had the right to find out who she was, and that responsible authorities had the right to track her down and make her answer for her actions.

Do you call that stalking?

Jonny

I'm sorry, it's late where I am, and my eyes or my brain must have blanked out somewhere in the middle of your posting. On second reading, I see now that you already addressed that issue.

Off to dreamland now ...

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 12th March 2007, 1:00pm