Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ General Discussion _ Anonymity

Posted by: 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.

QUOTE

----- 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

Posted by: Emperor

Interesting topic. I don't think it's been discussed in at least a few months.

My feeling is that it's safer to remain anonymous, and if all one is doing is editing wiki articles then it's fine. Leadership roles like checkuser and ArbCom it's more of a gray area; I'd feel more comfortable if those people had real names. They've abused their power so many times, and launched so many weird "investigations" where they basically started files on regular users, that they've proven anons cannot be trusted with those tools.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Emperor @ Wed 11th January 2012, 7:14pm) *

Leadership roles like checkuser and ArbCom it's more of a gray area; I'd feel more comfortable if those people had real names.


The question is, why? Given the argument in the post above, that senior people should be just as anonymous, and that it all works fine because of the complete transparency of Wikipedia (judge people by their actions, not their identities), why are we uncomfortable with that?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 11th January 2012, 2:26pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Wed 11th January 2012, 7:14pm) *

Leadership roles like checkuser and ArbCom it's more of a gray area; I'd feel more comfortable if those people had real names.

The question is, why? Given the argument in the post above, that senior people should be just as anonymous, and that it all works fine because of the complete transparency of Wikipedia (judge people by their actions, not their identities), why are we uncomfortable with that?

Checkuser logs aren't public, nor is the arbcom mailinglist and wiki.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 11th January 2012, 2:26pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Wed 11th January 2012, 7:14pm) *

Leadership roles like checkuser and ArbCom it's more of a gray area; I'd feel more comfortable if those people had real names.


The question is, why? Given the argument in the post above, that senior people should be just as anonymous, and that it all works fine because of the complete transparency of Wikipedia (judge people by their actions, not their identities), why are we uncomfortable with that?


Because many of the tools put in the hands of the anonymous leaders of Wikipedia enable them to make transparent actions opaque.

Oh, hell... why am I even bothering responding to a proposition posed by "Happy Melon"?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 11th January 2012, 1:55pm) *

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?



The identities of officers and board member of non-profits are made available to the public, of course, because they hold a position of trust in relation to public granted tax advantages of their organizations. So for instance the Reason Foundation which Godwin writes for may claim that it is "neither right nor left" but a review of the Board say otherwise including de-regulation worshiping "Founder" and a billionaire Koch Brother (fund Tea Party and/attack on public education.) This kind of information can be useful to the public. But still hundreds of thousands ordinary people serve as trustees board members and officers. It is common (at least in US) that filings provide only the charity office or sometimes only a lawyers office under "address." No one expects these citizen volunteer board members to expose themselves to any unneeded intrusion. If for instance the trustees of a family planning clinic become the targets of a person seeking information to find them such as home address, where they work, what bar they hang out at, or when they plan to attend a reunion that person is likely to quickly come to the attention of federal law enforcement.

Posted by: lilburne

At issue I believe is to have a is legal liability for the actions of organisation. With wikipedia they have public venues some of which act in a quasi legal form, which accuse and pronounce on the supposed misdeeds of others, where the outcome remains public and where such outcomes are frequently used to pillory others.

In the real world would we allow anonymous accusers, anonymous prosecutors, and anonymous judges?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 11th January 2012, 3:13pm) *

At issue I believe is to have a is legal liability for the actions of organisation. With wikipedia they have public venues some of which act in a quasi legal form, which accuse and pronounce on the supposed misdeeds of others, where the outcome remains public and where such outcomes are frequently used to pillory others.

In the real world would we allow anonymous accusers, anonymous prosecutors, and anonymous judges?


Wikipedia needs to be accountable to BLP victims, parents and other outside persons and organizations whose interests are affected by the website. This accountability should not require the aggrieved to engage "the community" in bizarre processes and forums. Redress should be provided by assessable means implemented by the staff at the direction of of the WMF Board of Directors. Of course all of this would require people using there real identifies and acting without anonymity like any other business (well except cable companies, of course.) If WMF did this I would not care how it treated Wikipedians in their internal disputes. Real Names-Anons-Prime Numbers-Whatever. They could decide cases with dice rolls. The only concern would be their ability to retain users. If they fail for lack of them who cares?

"Editing" is not a right that need concern anyone outside WP.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 11th January 2012, 12:13pm) *

In the real world would we allow anonymous accusers, anonymous prosecutors, and anonymous judges?

Yes. How would you like to be hauled in front of a judge for a criminal trial, and find that the judge calls himself "His Honour The Rt. Honourable Happy Melon", and wears a goofy mask on the bench? Whenever someone says something he doesn't like, he screams "OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" whereupon other faceless people drag you outside and kill you?

This is why Stephen Colbert makes jokes about Wikipedia--it resembles a massive, 11-year-long Monty Python sketch. Except that it's too bizarre to be funny.

And speaking of abuses, do I have to keep reminding people about the "secret" wikistalking-l list, or BADSITES, or the endless number of deranged things SlimVirgin has done, or the endless number of deranged things MONGO has done, or the massive pro-Jewish and pro-Israel bias Wikipedia "enjoys" thanks to a guy we only know as "Jayjg", or the massive amount of useless tokusatsu crap foisted onto Wikipedia by a snotty kid admin we know only as "Ryulong" (who also managed to block more than 10,000 accounts in his 2 1/2 years as an admin), or the endless hostile anti-Scientology material posted by persons unknown, or the pro-Werner Erhard and pro-Ayn Rand material posted by persons unknown, or 150,000 stubs about totally obscure football players.........do I need to go on?

"Happy Melon" can bullshit on a mailing list all he wants. I don't see him fixing the problems, because he's too damn busy using Wikipedia as a political wargame. So, the more he bullshits on a mailing list, the worse HE looks. He's one to talk, most of his "productive edits" lately have been minor changes to articles about British royalty. Does he work for the UK government? We don't know. And he wants to keep it that way. The freak.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

There are a number of issues:

1) The audit trail argument is fallacious. The reality is that those in power have been able to cover their tracks through the use of tools (notice these days that they are getting quite slack over the casual use of say, revision deletes, which used to be a minor scandal), the hiding of one's past misdeeds through creating new personas and whatever.

2) The suggestion that people in an anonymous world are judged by their deeds is fallacious too. Admins get a free pass in general and are presumed to be acting appropriately when challenged by minions. Minions are generally considered untrustworthy and unreliable and then IPs are just ignored or barred. Those not in the project are just treated as below contempt.

3) The linking of real life identities with Wikipedia identities is generally not, as far as I am aware, being done to expose the individual, but simply to link people who are holding positions of authority with their Wikipedia accounts, or to seek out why someone is acting in an obviously conflicted way.

4) It is interesting that Wikipedians hold their own anonymity sacrosanct and yet want to enforce COI, and of course the classic example was Gary Weiss who was actually probably the worst COI editor Wikipedia had seen. Without a concerted campaign where all those involved were vilified in real life in the most grievous way, Gary would not have been exposed, and what was worse, was that it wasn't really just about Gary, it was a whole host of other Wikipedians, who still are present today, who were well aware of the conflict but used the anonymity card to protect him. So, if there is a Wikipedian who is beavering away with anti-corporate slime on various articles, he is protected to the extreme, and the merest hint of being in favour of a company, you can be exposed and ridiculed as an evil COI person.

5) They then have a whole host of sock systems, where we see that even Wikipedia knows anonymity does not work because if anonymity were perfect, then we would just accept socks and assume that they represented what they did rather than who they were - clearly we judge them on their actions and the fact that they may be one or many people should not be relevant.

Posted by: gomi

History has shown us that anonymity (and pseudonymity) can be an important factor in the ability to criticize and call attention to a corrupt regime. It has similarly shown that corrupt regimes often shroud themselves in various degrees of opacity and anonymity. This asymmetry befuddles some people, but it really shouldn't.

There is an argument that when Wikipedia was a fledgling startup website, no well-regarded person would want attribution for a couple of throw-away sentences typed into a somewhat quixotic experimental website styling itself as an "encyclopedia". And indeed, the earliest versions of Wikipedia had no user names, only IP addresses.

But now Wikipedia is the establishment. Protecting anonymity and pseudonymity for editors of what might be the world's most-read (or most searched) source of trivia is foolhardy now. I might not care about the credentials of whomever typed in the cast list from Gilligan's Island (T-H-L-K-D), but knowing the credentials of someone writing about Dawn Wells (T-H-L-K-D), informs us about why they might spin things a certain way. This, of course, is vastly more important for topical issues of current events, certain long-running controversies, and any time someone might wish to damage (or enhance) the reputation of a company, person, or idea.

We rightly treat a press release differently than a news article, and both of them differently than an encyclopedia entry. Yet Wikipedia does not allow us to distinguish the motivation of the author of an article between these very different styles. This is one reason why Jimmy Wales becomes apoplectic whenever it is revealed that PR firms are editing Wikipedia -- it reveals for all to see the potential for abuse, and the structural inability of Wikipedia to avoid that abuse.

We have similarly seen incidents of people stopped at borders based on inaccurate Wikipedia entries. If we cannot know that governments are manipulating Wikipedia articles, how can we evaluate the reliability of the information we read? In one well-publicized case, Wikipedia deliberately (and for noble and humanitarian reasons) willingly suppressed information about a journalist held captive in the Middle East. But all such suppressions of information -- or insertions -- are unlikely to be equally benign.

We already see operatives for both sides in various Middle Eastern conflicts, notably the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, warring over various topic entries, trying to spin them in a favorable way for their side. These become clearer when we know the identity of the partisans (and they do tend to drive away less partisan nobodies), but we still do not know, for example, whether Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) is simply a concerned citizen writing about Israel, or a paid propagandist. The same can be said for his alter-egos on the other side of the argument.

This is not to say that encyclopedias are unbiased. Everything is biased, always, culturally, if not in other ways. Britannica is biased from a Western, British (despite now being American), Enlightenment, Scientific point of view. This is a point of view most of us understand, and the limitations of which educated people understand as well. Encyclopedias produced by the Vatican, the People's Republic of China, or the John Birch Society would have different, but discernible, biases.

Anonymity is completely incompatible with the concept of an encyclopedia. This is not to say that every author or critic at every stage of the process need be noted, biographied, and held to account. But someone must be accountable -- an editor, publisher, -- someone. But in Wikipedia, there is no editorial process, there are no standards that are above manipulation, there is no consistent editorial voice about which we can deduce policy or leaning. In Wikipedia, no one is accountable, and therefore, nothing is reliable.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 11th January 2012, 1:20pm) *

4) It is interesting that Wikipedians hold their own anonymity sacrosanct and yet want to enforce COI, and of course the classic example was Gary Weiss who was actually probably the worst COI editor Wikipedia had seen.

And he just had another sock banned. A sock that has been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=ScottyBerg, with near impunity. And editing Weiss's BLP, with near impunity.

QUOTE
5) They then have a whole host of sock systems, where we see that even Wikipedia knows anonymity does not work because if anonymity were perfect, then we would just accept socks and assume that they represented what they did rather than who they were - clearly we judge them on their actions and the fact that they may be one or many people should not be relevant.

Pop quiz: how many sock accounts vote in a typical RFA, AFD or other administrative decision?

No one knows. No one even has a vague guess. And we have seen cases of socks voting in the past
to support one side of an issue, the socks only being revealed later. When Mantan was an admin,
he did that. Weiss was socking at the time, and he has kept on socking, even after being desysoped and
banned "for eternity".

And I submit, the insiders of Wikipedia know he's doing it. And they tolerate him.

Posted by: melloden

Anonymity is one of the privileges (and disadvantages) of the Internet. Some users even on WR, myself included, enjoy the benefit of being nameless because it at least means we don't risk the possibility of being harassed off the Internet. And I use harass in the very loose manner that Wikipediots do. If people weren't so fanatical about Wikipedia, and being stalked or annoyed wasn't a major concern to most anonymous people in the Wikipedia circle, I hardly see why I should remain anonymous. But I don't want some wiki-freak making false complaints to my boss about my participation in this site. I participate because I can enjoy anonymity, to a point.

Many Wikipedia editors should not be anonymous for reasons such as exposure of COI or "abusive" editing, or just to satisfy our own curiosity. I've tried to find out the identities of quite a few editors, but it doesn't really matter in the end. We all know that the people running Wikipedia are either nerds or underqualified jobsless authority-mongers. Daniel Brandt isn't needed to show us that.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(melloden @ Wed 11th January 2012, 1:42pm) *

We all know that the people running Wikipedia are either nerds or underqualified jobsless authority-mongers. Daniel Brandt isn't needed to show us that.

Us, perhaps. What about the millions of average people who read Wikipedia articles every day?
What about the trolls who hang out on Wiki-friendly places like http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia?
You won't see any Wikipedia criticism there. Anyone who tries it gets downvoted aggressively.....

Posted by: iii

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th January 2012, 5:35pm) *
Us, perhaps....


I think it's well-known by the people only reading Wikipedia too. Anonymity of the writers is one of the first problems of Wikipedia recognized by most people who know any meta-information about the website at all. Almost all of the rest of Wikipedia's problems stem from that easy-to-come-by critique. However, even though many in the consumer class grok this problem, they also assume the internet is likely to be full of shit anyway, so they see no difference between Wikipedia and any other random website that shows up in a search engine.

Wikipedians tend to say their allowance for anonymous editing it is their best recruiting tool. They say they can get readers to join the cult because the readers will want to "fix" the problems they see. This isn't even close to being universally true. Most people when they see problems on the internet do not immediately think to themselves that it is their job to fix it. The interesting mental virus aspect of this is that it is the very arrogance of Wikipedians that make them fall for the fallacy of composition. The faulty logic goes that because Wikipedia's accessibility suckered their own arrogant self-importance, every single other consumer will always feel the same tug of needing to show they're right. This is the primary means by which Wikipedia tries to attract new editors and what you get is a ship of fools by design.

What's funny about this trope is that today the market is saturated, all who want in are already in, and the Wikipedia community is not-so-subtly obsessed with protecting the territory of those already in the door. The arrogant types at that website are hoping to become masters of their particular domain of knowledge. They think they're writing for posterity. What they are instead doing is maintaining a website that takes the hard work out of research in a laughable way that even very casual readers of Wikipedia recognize as a major flaw. Whether Wikipedia survives or not is beside the point. Even if its around for a long time, it will always be more-or-less a punchline like so much of what is found on the world wide web.

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(iii @ Wed 11th January 2012, 11:36pm) *

Wikipedians tend to say their allowance for anonymous editing it is their best recruiting tool. They say they can get readers to join the cult because the readers will want to "fix" the problems they see. This isn't even close to being universally true. Most people when they see problems on the internet do not immediately think to themselves that it is their job to fix it. The interesting mental virus aspect of this is that it is the very arrogance of Wikipedians that make them fall for the fallacy of composition. The faulty logic goes that because Wikipedia's accessibility suckered their own arrogant self-importance, every single other consumer will always feel the same tug of needing to show they're right. This is the primary means by which Wikipedia tries to attract new editors and what you get is a ship of fools by design.

What's funny about this trope is that today the market is saturated, all who want in are already in, and the Wikipedia community is not-so-subtly obsessed with protecting the territory of those already in the door. The arrogant types at that website are hoping to become masters of their particular domain of knowledge. They think they're writing for posterity. What they are instead doing is maintaining a website that takes the hard work out of research in a laughable way that even very casual readers of Wikipedia recognize as a major flaw. Whether Wikipedia survives or not is beside the point. Even if its around for a long time, it will always be more-or-less a punchline like so much of what is found on the world wide web.


Yes.

QUOTE
You won't see any Wikipedia criticism there. Anyone who tries it gets downvoted aggressively.....


Your point? Reddit is turning into 4chan without pictures. No one really cares about Reddit.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(melloden @ Wed 11th January 2012, 4:45pm) *

Your point? Reddit is turning into 4chan without pictures. No one really cares about Reddit.

It's #115 in the world http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/reddit.com#, and gets http://www.quantcast.com/reddit.com. Not Wikipedia huge,
but popular among young males--exactly the same group that controls Wikipedia. Or 4chan, for that matter.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

I'd like to push things back slightly from the quote which started the thread. The man with the ridiculous name was replying to the following post to the list.

QUOTE

Anthony,

I am just an ordinary Wikipedian. Although I have contemplated becoming an admin in the past, I have never applied to be one and don't intend to do so in the foreseeable future. As such, I have no obligation to acknowledge anything about anyone.

It so happens that the Wikipedian I have probably had most contact with as a Wikipedian is an anonymous editor and I understand enough of his circumstances to know why it is appropriate in his case. I am not going to out him or other ordinary editors or admins who focus on using the brush
end of the broom. However, the higher someone gets up the hierarchy the less appropriate it is for someone to be granted anonymity.

When someone is active in AE or has an extensive history of using blocks against established editors, then the right to privacy becomes questionable. Wikipedia isn't just a private club. It is one of the most powerful websites in the world.

Arbitrators, senior Foundation staff and directors of WMUK and the like are in positions of authority over that website and it is entirely appropriate that they should be scrutinised publcly.

I don't know as much about Buckner as you do. Maybe I would be horrified by him if I did. But I'm not going to accept that everyone in high-profile roles should be above external scrutiny. And actually it's surprising how restrained people are being. As far as I know, no one seems to have gone to Private Eye.

Peter

> Peter,
>
> The additional issues with Buckner, who routinely tries to uncover the identity of Wikipedians who
> are in high-profile roles, mean it is quite appropriate to ban him from these events.
>
> Nobody said he was a "security risk", but it is the case that he has caused stress among many
> editors for no other reason than that he can. A subset of these editors have resigned because of
> Buckner/Damian. He should not be welcome at WMUK events because of his behaviour, period. It
> astounds me that you don't acknowledge the ongoing issues with this man's actions.
>
> Anthony


Peter is Peter cohen (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Anthony is AGK (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Private Eye is a British satirical magazine which likes to dish the dirt on corruption and hypocrisy in public office.

The bolding does not appear in the original email. While quoting from the original email willy-nilly, Happy Melon seems to have "overlooked" that text. If he had, then the idea that the Wikimedia "community"were the only people scrutinising those who exercise power over one of the most read sites would be shown to be ridiculous. However the likes of Happy Melon want the power without the responsibility that goes with it.

It would be nice to force anyone editing a BLP to do so under their real name. Unfortunately, there would need to be some protection for people in police states or with relatives there.

I suppose that I have to think about why I use a pseudonym here if I am critical of Dopey Fruit's defence of his and his co-conspirators' use of them. One key difference is that WR is not a powerful site compared with the one it is scrutinising. WRers have certainly had real fears of retaliation in the past.

Pseudonymns also allow a certain distancing from the tone. A lot of satirical newspaper columns have been written pseudonymously. My original userid here was ironic in nature, using an insult that had been thrown at me. But then the WR police forced me to change it. If I were contributing here under my real name, I would not have started a thread referring to the macho posturings by certain admins against Malleus by saying that they had their dicks out. Some [Malleus]fucking cunts[/Malleus] might rather that I had not done so but I think the availability of a certain amount of colourful language is appropriate on this site provided that it doesn't reach Wikifan proportions.

I therefore persist with a pseudonym even though it is not the hardest challenge to work out who I am. Rest assured that if, say, I were to write to a parliamentary committee about why I felt that a senior Wikimedian had not been altogether frank with them, then I would do so under my real name.

Which reminds me. The fact that said Wikimedian is on the board of a charity that professes to be educational in nature and has previously uploaded educational pornographic pictures of himself to the website most associated with that charity, surely that is just the sort of thing that should be subject to public scrutiny? If he had not used a form of his real name as his initial id, then this would never have become known. But I haven't seen WikimediaUK making all the previous accounts of their Trustees and senior staff publicly known.

Posted by: tarantino

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/007013.html

QUOTE
Agreed completely with what Happy Melon is saying,

I am in complete disagreement with what Peter [Cohen] suggests: that somehow
admins, arbitrators, and high profile editors are less covered by
Wikipedia's norms and polices on pseudonymous editing then regular editors.
…
If you are in disagreement with the policy, that's fine. You're allowed to be wrong.

What a moron.

Posted by: EricBarbour

"Dopey Fruit". Very good. I'll keep using it.

Dopey is clearly a sock. He http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Happy-melon in February 2006 and promptly started gnoming like an experienced editor.
Sneaky little bastard. Plus, some holes in his contrib log.

He also runs a custom bot that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive507#Broken_formatting_due_to_massive_pseudo-automated_revisions_to_Wikipedia.

What the hell is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRV_eg_1.1.JPG? Perhaps it should be deleted, yes?

Oh christ, another Harry Potter fanboy.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 12th January 2012, 2:09am) *


It would be nice to force anyone editing a BLP to do so under their real name. Unfortunately, there would need to be some protection for people in police states or with relatives there.




I was thinking about that, but came to the conclusion that such reasoning doesn't really apply wrt to wikipedia. That is because if you are seriously concerned about repercussions then why are you contributing to an encyclopaedia, especially as you are only supposed to add content based on published sources. If you are putting stuff in that will get you in trouble then you are almost certainly proselytizing in some form or other.

I suspect that one has other outlets other than an encyclopaedia for doing that.

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 12th January 2012, 2:09am) *


If I were contributing here under my real name, I would not have started a thread referring to the macho posturings by certain admins against Malleus by saying that they had their dicks out. Some [Malleus]fucking cunts[/Malleus] might rather that I had not done so but I think the availability of a certain amount of colourful language is appropriate on this site provided that it doesn't reach Wikifan proportions.



Now there is the real reason for remaining anonymous where you are concerned that the expression of your opinions will somehow get you into trouble. That is fine here, and why you should have the right to be anonymous here. But it doesn't follow that editing WP should be the same, as your opinions and biases should be left outside that particular door.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 12th January 2012, 4:29am) *

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/007013.html
QUOTE
Agreed completely with what Happy Melon is saying,

I am in complete disagreement with what Peter [Cohen] suggests: that somehow
admins, arbitrators, and high profile editors are less covered by
Wikipedia's norms and polices on pseudonymous editing then regular editors.
…
If you are in disagreement with the policy, that's fine. You're allowed to be wrong.

What a moron.


On re-reading that email I had missed that he threatened to vote against me Peter at future RfAs. Voting against giving authority to someone who advocates a greater degree of scrutiny of those in authority and who does edit under his real name... that just shows the corruption in the minds of Yellow David and his ilk.

Posted by: Retrospect

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 12th January 2012, 1:09am) *

It's #115 in the world http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/reddit.com#, and gets http://www.quantcast.com/reddit.com. Not Wikipedia huge,
but popular among young males--exactly the same group that controls Wikipedia. Or 4chan, for that matter.

"young males - exactly the same group". That's group libel. We're a pretty large and varied group you know. I for one have no intrntion of ever going anywhere within a mile of 4chan.

Posted by: mbz1

An interesting conversation that really took place at AN/I


Posted by: jd turk

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 12th January 2012, 1:59pm) *

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.


Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(jd turk @ Fri 13th January 2012, 12:30am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 12th January 2012, 1:59pm) *

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.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 12th January 2012, 6:57pm) *

QUOTE(jd turk @ Fri 13th January 2012, 12:30am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 12th January 2012, 1:59pm) *

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.

Posted by: jd turk

QUOTE(radek @ Thu 12th January 2012, 7:56pm) *

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.


True, fails horribly at both. When I first edited long ago, on two different occasions I had people stalk me to other sites because my user name was a part of my ID there. And I'm not talking about just someone getting upset because their BLP is wrong, these were minor content discussions like removing common names from a college's page.

If everyone is not required to have a committed ID, then no one below crat level should have to do that either. Of course, if everyone is required to go through some kind of identification process, then Wikipedia won't be able to claim huge numbers of editors anymore, because the extra step and verification will cut into those numbers.

WP could easily have accountability, but won't do so because that eliminates the whole "encyclopedia anyone but Ottava can use" slogan.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(jd turk @ Fri 13th January 2012, 12:30am) *
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.
QUOTE(radek @ Thu 12th January 2012, 5:56pm) *
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.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:40am) *

QUOTE(jd turk @ Fri 13th January 2012, 12:30am) *
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.
QUOTE(radek @ Thu 12th January 2012, 5:56pm) *
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 being an Internet chat room some time ago, morons.


...says an (essentially) anonymous guy.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 3:40am) *

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.

applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif

Posted by: Emperor

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.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th January 2012, 7:08am) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 3:40am) *

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.

applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif 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.

QUOTE(Emperor @ Fri 13th January 2012, 8:16am) *

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.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 13th January 2012, 11:15am) *

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.

Oh, I'm sorry, Radek... I forgot that Wikipedia Review is now a tax-exempt non-profit that publishes an encyclopedia, and so its participants should be compared on an equal footing with participants in Wikipedia.












Serious question... are you at least partially mentally handicapped?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:40am) *
Wikipedia stopped being an Internet chat room some time ago, morons.
No, it still is an internet chat room. It's just that they pretend that it isn't, and enough people fall for their false trade dress (they claim to be an encyclopedia when they really aren't) that it creates a real social issue.

I wonder if it'd be possible to have Wikipedia enjoined from claiming to be an encyclopedia on the grounds that they don't behave like one, by making it into a consumer protection matter. Probably not.

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 13th January 2012, 4:15pm) *


QUOTE(Emperor @ Fri 13th January 2012, 8:16am) *

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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 13th January 2012, 5:58pm) *
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.

Your argument entirely fails to address the problem that Wikipedia is now the most powerful website in the world (it’s not as big as Facebook, but has the potential to shape international public opinion in the way Facebook cannot). Your argument seems a reductio ad absurdum of the principle that the most powerful website on the planet should allow anyone to edit. If you have ‘anyone can edit’ you must have anonymity, for exactly the reason that the staff on London underground have discs with a ID number, but not a name. But the staff on London underground don’t have the ability to attack total strangers they take a dislike to. Those who do, such as journalists, must not be anonymous.

The problem is 'anyone can edit'.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 13th January 2012, 9:58am) *
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?"

That's not an attack, its a question. You, like others, are missing the point. If Wikipedia wants to be a big ol' social networking site, then let people dress up as furries and call themselves Lord Dracon. But if it is a reputable encyclopedia, that shit just won't fly.

The point that it couldn't have started without anonymity is a good one (and one I have addressed elsewhere). But it wasn't credible then, and purports to be now. Things have changed.

One thing that I can point out is that a number of Wikipedia big-wigs are now both well-known and known to be professionals (within some broad definition of that word). For better or worse, http://www.ganfershore.com/sub/ira-brad-matetsky.jsp (Newyorkbrad (T-C-L-K-R-D) and http://www.goodwinprocter.com/People/B/Bednarz-Frank.aspx (Cool Hand Luke (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) are both practicing lawyers whose careers have not been obviously hindered by their nasty hobby.

Wikipedia, when it comes to the reliability of information, is not different from the rest of the world. Wikipidiots want it to be different because most of them are either partisans with obvious biases or children.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 6:34pm) *

For better or worse, http://www.ganfershore.com/sub/ira-brad-matetsky.jsp (Newyorkbrad (T-C-L-K-R-D) and http://www.goodwinprocter.com/People/B/Bednarz-Frank.aspx (Cool Hand Luke (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) are both practicing lawyers whose careers have not been obviously hindered by their nasty hobby.


Could you please clarify what did you mean under "careers have not been obviously hindered ".

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 13th January 2012, 10:38am) *
QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 6:34pm) *
For better or worse, http://www.ganfershore.com/sub/ira-brad-matetsky.jsp (Newyorkbrad (T-C-L-K-R-D) and http://www.goodwinprocter.com/People/B/Bednarz-Frank.aspx (Cool Hand Luke (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) are both practicing lawyers whose careers have not been obviously hindered by their nasty hobby.
Could you please clarify what did you mean under "careers have not been obviously hindered ".

Mr. Bednarz was able to pass the bar and gain a position in a law firm, despite skulking on Wikipedia and participating in its kangaroo form of justice, and Mr. Matetsky, after having his identity revealed and taking a short break, has continued to practice law with no obvious shame. I don't understand in what way the sentence isn't clear.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 6:50pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 13th January 2012, 10:38am) *
QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 6:34pm) *
For better or worse, http://www.ganfershore.com/sub/ira-brad-matetsky.jsp (Newyorkbrad (T-C-L-K-R-D) and http://www.goodwinprocter.com/People/B/Bednarz-Frank.aspx (Cool Hand Luke (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) are both practicing lawyers whose careers have not been obviously hindered by their nasty hobby.
Could you please clarify what did you mean under "careers have not been obviously hindered ".

Mr. Bednarz was able to pass the bar and gain a position in a law firm, despite skulking on Wikipedia and participating in its kangaroo form of justice, and Mr. Matetsky, after having his identity revealed and taking a short break, has continued to practice law with no obvious shame. I don't understand in what way the sentence isn't clear.

I meant that I simply cannot imagine a successful attorney loosing time on wikipedia and even not on adding content, but serving in cowardly and dishonest govcom. My sister who works as a para-legal in a law firm tells me that their attorneys are always extremely busy, and the ones who are not partners work weekends too.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th January 2012, 11:01am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 13th January 2012, 11:15am) *

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.

Oh, I'm sorry, Radek... I forgot that Wikipedia Review is now a tax-exempt non-profit that publishes an encyclopedia, and so its participants should be compared on an equal footing with participants in Wikipedia.

Serious question... are you at least partially mentally handicapped?



Right, because these anonymous regular editors see so many of those tax-exempt dollars. What does that have to do with anything? Non-sequitur much? Blame Wikipedia as a website and an institution all you want - in fact that's what I did. But I can totally understand why, with things as they are, individual editors might wish to have some anonymity. Apparently others feel the same with regard to their posts on WR.

And sure Wikipedia Review shouldn't be compared to Wikipedia. But both sides consist of people who *choose* to contribute.

And the answer to your "serious question" (can you be any more of a phony?) - is yeah, I'm allergic to stupid assholes.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 12:34pm) *

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 13th January 2012, 9:58am) *
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?"

That's not an attack, its a question. You, like others, are missing the point. If Wikipedia wants to be a big ol' social networking site, then let people dress up as furries and call themselves Lord Dracon. But if it is a reputable encyclopedia, that shit just won't fly.

The point that it couldn't have started without anonymity is a good one (and one I have addressed elsewhere). But it wasn't credible then, and purports to be now. Things have changed.

One thing that I can point out is that a number of Wikipedia big-wigs are now both well-known and known to be professionals (within some broad definition of that word). For better or worse, http://www.ganfershore.com/sub/ira-brad-matetsky.jsp (Newyorkbrad (T-C-L-K-R-D) and http://www.goodwinprocter.com/People/B/Bednarz-Frank.aspx (Cool Hand Luke (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) are both practicing lawyers whose careers have not been obviously hindered by their nasty hobby.

Wikipedia, when it comes to the reliability of information, is not different from the rest of the world. Wikipidiots want it to be different because most of them are either partisans with obvious biases or children.


The thing is, that for every two cases like the ones you give above, there's a case or two of some editor you never heard of who was viciously harassed in some form or another because they naively put up their real name on that site.

Posted by: EricBarbour


QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:40am) *

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.

Fully agreed, with one exception: it stopped being a chatroom, but there are still more than 100
administrators who continue to use it as a chatroom.


You're right, and GBG is even (a little bit) right: WR is becoming a Wikipedia fanboy hangout.
Too many of the guys in this thread think it can be "fixed" or "reformed". Fools.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 13th January 2012, 8:29pm) *

The thing is, that for every two cases like the ones you give above, there's a case or two of some editor you never heard of who was viciously harassed in some form or another because they naively put up their real name on that site.


citation please.

Is there a problem of harassment of those that write Britannica articles? It seems that the problems occur when one or more anonymous people get into a tiff.

Remove the anonymity.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:23pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th January 2012, 11:01am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 13th January 2012, 11:15am) *

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.

Oh, I'm sorry, Radek... I forgot that Wikipedia Review is now a tax-exempt non-profit that publishes an encyclopedia, and so its participants should be compared on an equal footing with participants in Wikipedia.

Serious question... are you at least partially mentally handicapped?

. . .
And the answer to your "serious question" (can you be any more of a phony?) - is yeah, I'm allergic to stupid assholes.

Given that and the fact you still http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Volunteer+Marek, the identity of your mental debility would presumably be http://www.thefreedictionary.com/masochism.

Posted by: Rhindle

My own take:

If you fight The Man, it's ok to be anonymous

If you are The Man, you should have the balls to not hid behind a pseudonym.

If you're using anonymity to get away with doing shady and illegal things and get caught and outed it's your own damn fault.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 13th January 2012, 12:29pm) *
The thing is, that for every two cases like the ones you give above, there's a case or two of some editor you never heard of who was viciously harassed in some form or another because they naively put up their real name on that site.

I seriously doubt that. There may be cases of some random editor writing something stupid, biased, or offensive, or some random admin banning someone and suffering some blowback in the form of a nasty email or even a call to an employer, but in only one case do I know of a situation that has risen to the level of "stalking".

The latter is the case of our own Alison (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who had an honest-to-God nutcase harassing her at her place of work. Whether Wikipedia was the proximate cause of that I do not know, but she got honest-to-God police to deal with it and the guy went to honest-to-God jail. Not the Internet police and not Internet jail. While I wish it had not happened to her or to anyone, it could have happened as easily if she had written a letter to the editor of her local newspaper, and indeed the nutcase in this situation harassed other (non-Wikipedia) women as well.

The point is, some things have consequences. Writing purportedly factual information on a website that pretends to be an encyclopedia, about people, places, and ideas that other care about has a consequence. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 4:32pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 13th January 2012, 12:29pm) *
The thing is, that for every two cases like the ones you give above, there's a case or two of some editor you never heard of who was viciously harassed in some form or another because they naively put up their real name on that site.

I seriously doubt that. There may be cases of some random editor writing something stupid, biased, or offensive, or some random admin banning someone and suffering some blowback in the form of a nasty email or even a call to an employer, but in only one case do I know of a situation that has risen to the level of "stalking".

The latter is the case of our own Alison (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who had an honest-to-God nutcase harassing her at her place of work. Whether Wikipedia was the proximate cause of that I do not know, but she got honest-to-God police to deal with it and the guy went to honest-to-God jail. Not the Internet police and not Internet jail. While I wish it had not happened to her or to anyone, it could have happened as easily if she had written a letter to the editor of her local newspaper, and indeed the nutcase in this situation harassed other (non-Wikipedia) women as well.

The point is, some things have consequences. Writing purportedly factual information on a website that pretends to be an encyclopedia, about people, places, and ideas that other care about has a consequence. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.


In addition to Alison, I know of two, one of which was particularly nasty. And I don't really know that many people. And no, I won't be giving "citations" as that would defeat the purpose of these people trying to avoid that kind of thing happening again.

Edit: I should add that by "know" I don't mean just "heard about".

Posted by: jd turk

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:40am) *

You are both lame fucking juvenile idiots.

And thanks for helping me prove my point, you anonymous person on a message board who's taking shots at me for telling a personal story about being harassed.

My story of harassment is far from the worst. It's maybe a 3 on a 10 scale, but it was enough to make me realize the nutcases that were out there, and the battles being fought where there was absolutely nothing to be gained.

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:40am) *

The world is full of reporters who write controversial stories...

Reporters get paid, and are protected by the structure they work within. If you're upset at a newspaper article, the paper has lawyers on retainer and an editor-in-chief who can help protect his reporter.

If I remove your name from a list of notable alumni for your college, and you spam my Ebay account, or flood my website, or you decide to call my employer to convince him to fire me, Wikipedia doesn't care about these things. They'll block your account, perhaps, which does no good whatsoever in the real world.

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:40am) *

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".

No, actually that's what I said above, which you didn't bother to read. You should have a verified identity to edit WP, but they'll never do that because it'll cut into their numbers.

And your description of Wikipedia sounds wonderful. Totally inaccurate, but a great concept. Good luck with all that.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(jd turk @ Sat 14th January 2012, 1:13am) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:40am) *

You are both lame fucking juvenile idiots.

And thanks for helping me prove my point, you anonymous person on a message board who's taking shots at me for telling a personal story about being harassed.

My story of harassment is far from the worst. It's maybe a 3 on a 10 scale, but it was enough to make me realize the nutcases that were out there, and the battles being fought where there was absolutely nothing to be gained.


You were "telling a personal story about being harassed"? I missed on it. Where it is? confused.gif

Posted by: jd turk

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 13th January 2012, 11:52pm) *

You were "telling a personal story about being harassed". I missed on it? Where it is? confused.gif

By my count, mbz1 has told me twice she's set me to "ignore," so I doubt there's anything I can do to answer this. If anyone wants to forward it (or if she's still watching), it was post #28 in this thread.

And again, my real-life stalking was very mild. I'm not making more of it than it was, especially with what's happened to Allison and others. Nobody called my employer or school, or any of the other crazy things that have happened. But it was certainly enough to show me that yes, there are crazy people out there.

Everyone needs a verified identity to edit to ensure reliability and accountability. But WP won't do that. So I sure as Hell wouldn't volunteer to be the first.

When anonymity is outlawed, only outlaws will be anonymous. Or something like that.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(jd turk @ Fri 13th January 2012, 5:13pm) *
QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:40am) *
You are both lame fucking juvenile idiots.
And thanks for helping me prove my point, you anonymous person on a message board who's taking shots at me for telling a personal story about being harassed.
You did no such thing (tell a personal story). Your post (linked) is bereft of personal information of any kind. And has been adequately pointed-out, Wikipedia Review is not an encyclopedia. And finally, if you don't have a pretty good idea who I am, you're even stupider than I thought.

The rest of your post has even less connection with reality, so I will not dignify it with a response.

Posted by: jd turk

My story had as many personal details as I'm going to give out here, I'm afraid. If that doesn't make it personal enough for you, Mr. Total Stranger on the Internet...then oh well.

QUOTE(gomi @ Sat 14th January 2012, 12:50am) *

And finally, if you don't have a pretty good idea who I am, you're even stupider than I thought.


Sorry, I don't. Just keep assigning me demerits in your gradebook, I guess.I'm not as up on the mythology of WP and WR as others are, and I don't know the entire cast of characters. Don't take it personally, please.

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

QUOTE(gomi @ Sat 14th January 2012, 6:50am) *

QUOTE(jd turk @ Fri 13th January 2012, 5:13pm) *
QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:40am) *
You are both lame fucking juvenile idiots.
And thanks for helping me prove my point, you anonymous person on a message board who's taking shots at me for telling a personal story about being harassed.
You did no such thing (tell a personal story). Your post (linked) is bereft of personal information of any kind. And has been adequately pointed-out, Wikipedia Review is not an encyclopedia. And finally, if you don't have a pretty good idea who I am, you're even stupider than I thought.

The rest of your post has even less connection with reality, so I will not dignify it with a response.


I have been posting to this site for very many years, and I don't have a clue who you are - but that might be because I really don't care. I suspect that this will not bother you, not least because you are one of the many on this site who have me on ignore and will thus not read it; a strange option for a project with the declared aim for open dialogue regarding the failings of another. Wikipedia is possibly more an encyclopedia than Wikipedia Review is a true criticism site, these days. That is sad, and one of the reasons that I grew tired of WR before I tired of WP.

If you can't have a discussion without calling the other people names you have no right to call yourself a critic, and certainly should not be moderating other peoples freedom of speech. Be the adult, for fucks sake, that you decry others for not being.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 14th January 2012, 1:19pm) *
I suspect that this will not bother you, not least because you are one of the many on this site who have me on ignore and will thus not read it; a strange option for a project with the declared aim for open dialogue regarding the failings of another.
Are you talking to me? I have no one on ignore, never had. Wish I could -- mods don't get that option.

QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 14th January 2012, 1:19pm) *
Wikipedia is possibly more an encyclopedia than Wikipedia Review is a true criticism site, these days. That is sad, and one of the reasons that I grew tired of WR before I tired of WP.
If that is true (I don't happen to agree), it would only because we allow Wikipedia apologists in here to dilute the editorial voice. I don't subscribe entirely to GBG's current bout of lunacy, but while WR is anarchic, it certainly sometimes provides valid criticism.

QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 14th January 2012, 1:19pm) *
If you can't have a discussion without calling the other people names you have no right to call yourself a critic, and certainly should not be moderating other peoples freedom of speech.
"For the blind, write large." Sometimes one needs to call an idiot an idiot. I have no need to be gentle with the Wikipedia morons who lurk around here -- I'm not trying to teach them anything, most of you are beyond hope.

QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 14th January 2012, 1:19pm) *
Be the adult, for fucks sake, that you decry others for not being.
I don't think being an adult involves babying juvenile (but presumptively adult, due to our terms of service) morons. If you can't stand the heat ...


Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 14th January 2012, 3:19pm) *
If you can't have a discussion without calling the other people names you have no right to call yourself a critic
On the contrary, history is replete with effective and sensible critics calling other (less sensible) people names. Some people are just too stupid to be reasoned with in any other way. And, sadly, this forum seems to be saturated with such people.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 14th January 2012, 3:07pm) *
On the contrary, history is replete with effective and sensible critics calling other (less sensible) people names. Some people are just too stupid to be reasoned with in any other way. And, sadly, this forum seems to be saturated with such people.

Wikipedia is RUN by such people. Inevitable that some of them would come over here and sock
for a sick kind of "entertainment".

Gomi, if Turk is too annoying, kick him. I don't see him offering any really useful critiques
or other information. Lately he's just been trolling. Stick him in the Whine Club with Ottava.

Posted by: jd turk

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 14th January 2012, 6:12pm) *

Gomi, if Turk is too annoying, kick him. I don't see him offering any really useful critiques
or other information. Lately he's just been trolling. Stick him in the Whine Club with Ottava.

So telling a story of personal harassment, and using it to explain why I feel anonymity is necessary unless everyone has a verified identity (which WP will never do) is just "trolling?"

Forgive me for wasting words, then.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Cedric @ Fri 13th January 2012, 4:07pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:23pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th January 2012, 11:01am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 13th January 2012, 11:15am) *

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.

Oh, I'm sorry, Radek... I forgot that Wikipedia Review is now a tax-exempt non-profit that publishes an encyclopedia, and so its participants should be compared on an equal footing with participants in Wikipedia.

Serious question... are you at least partially mentally handicapped?

. . .
And the answer to your "serious question" (can you be any more of a phony?) - is yeah, I'm allergic to stupid assholes.

Given that and the fact you still http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Volunteer+Marek...[/url].


Well, so does Kohs apparently (i.e. he claims too). Or Horsey or any other number of folks. They just do it with socks (NTTWWT) - in what world did "I edit Wikipedia for money using anonymous sockpuppets" become morally superior to "I edit Wikipedia because I actually have an interest in some topic"?

And in what world does "I edit Wikipedia for money using anonymous sockpuppets" give the moral right to that person using anonymous sock puppets for money to start criticizing the folks who do it without sockpuppets and not for money, but semi-anonymously out of personal interest? And to criticize others for being semi-anonymous! 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. Some folks have been around Wikipedia too long - as anonymous sock puppeteers or otherwise - and internalized the whole "let's turn common sense on its head" theme that pervades it.

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

The logical turns and twists as well as the cognitive dissonance on display here are quite impressive. But hey, I guess I'm just "mentally handicapped".

You don't want to legitimize that site with your edits, fine, I understand that. That's what Eric does, for example. It's consistent and non-hypocritical. But IF YOU DO EDIT IT, for money or any other reason, with sockpuppets or otherwise, then you got no room to get all sanctimonious and shit. Like I said it's just hypocrisy and the "anonymity for me but not for thee" mentality.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 15th January 2012, 6:42pm) *

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.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 15th January 2012, 11:09pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 15th January 2012, 6:42pm) *

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".

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 15th January 2012, 5:42pm) *

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.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 16th January 2012, 1:12am) *

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.



Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 16th January 2012, 1:12am) *

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.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 16th January 2012, 8:19am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 16th January 2012, 1:12am) *

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.

Posted by: 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

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(timbo @ Mon 16th January 2012, 6:39pm) *

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.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 16th January 2012, 2:06pm) *

...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.

Posted by: timbo

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 16th January 2012, 6:55pm) *

QUOTE(timbo @ Mon 16th January 2012, 6:39pm) *

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

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 17th January 2012, 5:27am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 16th January 2012, 2:06pm) *

...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?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Fusion @ Mon 23rd January 2012, 7:38am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 17th January 2012, 5:27am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 16th January 2012, 2:06pm) *

...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!

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Wed 25th January 2012, 4:29pm) *

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.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 25th January 2012, 12:07pm) *

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Wed 25th January 2012, 4:29pm) *

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 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=1067011&diff=65997272&oldid=65997185! dry.gif

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:07pm) *

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 "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Birgitta.jpg" or "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AThe_100_Greatest_Metal_Guitarists_-_cover_for_web.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=65043166&oldid=65041402." But when someone he likes to get blocked says it, it is "outing".

Posted by: 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.

QUOTE

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)

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 19th February 2012, 6:39am) *

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.

QUOTE

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?

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Wed 25th January 2012, 12:22pm) *

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.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 19th February 2012, 2:11pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 19th February 2012, 6:39am) *

QUOTE

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.


Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Wed 25th January 2012, 5:22pm) *

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.



Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 19th February 2012, 2:52pm) *

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.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 19th February 2012, 2:11pm) *
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.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 19th February 2012, 9:21am) *
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.

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 19th February 2012, 11:34am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 19th February 2012, 2:11pm) *
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.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE
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!

QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 19th February 2012, 9:00am) *
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?)

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 19th February 2012, 2:56pm) *

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Wed 25th January 2012, 5:22pm) *

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.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 19th February 2012, 10:43pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 19th February 2012, 2:56pm) *

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Wed 25th January 2012, 5:22pm) *

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.

Posted by: Selina

But Flickr is anonymous too? *confused*

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 19th February 2012, 11:34am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 19th February 2012, 2:11pm) *
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?

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 19th February 2012, 5:00pm) *

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?

Posted by: Selina

so somewhere in the region of over 9000 I am guessing wink.gif

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Selina @ Sun 19th February 2012, 11:52pm) *

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.