Anonymity vs Transparency, The Inevitable Conflict Options

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...n_2010_and_2011

Here's an argument about whether a voter log should be accessible to the public. FormerIP says that the log is undemocratic due to some unspecified reason (apparently, a democracy is a sort of government where stores may not have surveillance equipment and cameras in order to ensure that thieves remain anonymous), while everyone else says that public oversight is necessary in order that the counting of votes is conducted fairly. It should be noted that the logs doesn't say who voted for who; the log only says who voted and when.

[that one guy]

one of the advantages for the old voting style was that people could give a reason why they were supporting, opposing, or neither. Granted it could lead to bandwagoning but A. it gave people an idea on what others thought (without "guides") and B. allowed the candidates to see what people thought of them.

This post has been edited by that one guy: Wed 14th December 2011, 8:59pm

[Detective]

one of the advantages for the old voting style was that people could give a reason why they were supporting, opposing, or neither. Granted it could lead to bandwagoning but A. it gave people an idea on what others thought (without "guides") and B. allowed the candidates to see what people thought of them.

There could in principle be some way to allow people to leave anonymous comments, as in 360º reporting.

[Wikifan]

wait it records your vote? i thought it was all anonymous.

id support a log that merely listed the amount of votes - date, time, etc - but only list the user if they opt for it during their vote. if there is controversy then the list could be made public but it shouldn't be automatic.

[Ottava]

FormerIP says that the log is undemocratic due to some unspecified reason (apparently, a democracy is a sort of government where stores may not have surveillance equipment and cameras in order to ensure that thieves remain anonymous), while everyone else says that public oversight is necessary in order that the counting of votes is conducted fairly.

Some people are just stupid, so why bother bringing up his view? Or is he someone new and some how important without any of us paying attention to his rise?

[Michaeldsuarez]

Some people are just stupid, so why bother bringing up his view? Or is he someone new and some how important without any of us paying attention to his rise?

There isn't anything special about him or her. He or she is simply the main opponent of public access to that log.

Of course, he or she did attempt to make the anti-SOPA strike start today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...sday_where_I_am

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._all_over_again

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...kipedia_off_RfC

[Ottava]

Some people are just stupid, so why bother bringing up his view? Or is he someone new and some how important without any of us paying attention to his rise?

There isn't anything special about him or her. He or she is simply the main opponent of public access to that log.

Of course, he or she did attempt to make the anti-SOPA strike start today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...sday_where_I_am

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._all_over_again

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...kipedia_off_RfC

I wonder how many of them would change their votes if they knew that Rupert Murdoch was also opposed to SOPA.


P.S. how come I missed that he came back?

This post has been edited by Ottava: Thu 15th December 2011, 2:18pm