Anonymous admins?
Post by Igor Alexander on Dec 7, 2005, 8:52am

Since Wikipedia administrators are in a position of trust and authority, have powers and privileges which normal editors do not (including the power to access the private information of other editors), and, whether they like it or not, are seen as representatives of Wikipedia by the outside world, should they be permitted to carry out their duties anonymously?

Power without accountability is a dangerous combination. We don't allow bureaucrats, police, and politicians to do their jobs anonymously. Why are Wikipedia admins given this right? What would be the problem with making the loss of anonymity a condition for becoming an administrator?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Anonymous admins?
Post by caldecott on Dec 7, 2005, 11:30am

It is possible to have multiple username identities (known as "sockpuppets") on Wikipedia. If you keep one identity isolated to your work computer and the other to your home computer, it's easy as pie.

Add in wildcards like campus computers, library computers, and non-static IP addresses, and it's theoretically possible to become several different Admins at once, if you're patient and diligent enough. Eventually abuse of this ability will become apparent to all, but that could be years away. When the right lawsuit hits Wikipedia, it will happen, though. They can't go on anonymously forever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Anonymous admins?
Post by Ignore me on Dec 7, 2005, 12:16pm

Bureaucrats, police and politicians don't work for private companies or volunteer their own time in return for nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Anonymous admins?
Post by Igor Alexander on Dec 7, 2005, 11:07pm


Dec 7, 2005, 12:16pm, Ignore me wrote:Bureaucrats, police and politicians don't work for private companies or volunteer their own time in return for nothing.



So Wikipedia admins don't need to be accountable because they're not collecting a paycheck?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Anonymous admins?
Post by Igor Alexander on Dec 8, 2005, 11:02am


Dec 7, 2005, 11:30am, caldecott wrote:. . . it's theoretically possible to become several different Admins at once, if you're patient and diligent enough.




Anyone who would go through the trouble of doing this REALLY needs to get a life!

The problem is serious, though. There are any number of groups that would have an interest in doing such a thing - cults, corporations, intelligence agencies, zealots, etc. Having a couple of admins (or even ONE, for that matter) working in any one of these groups' interests would give them a tremendous amount of control over the contents of an article. They could block people who's contributions ran counter to their agenda, lock the article when edits weren't going their way, nail contributors they didn't like with a thousand little technicalities, etc.

There really needs to be more accountability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Anonymous admins?
Post by Cyber on Dec 8, 2005, 9:22pm


Dec 7, 2005, 12:16pm, Ignore me wrote:Bureaucrats, police and politicians don't work for private companies or volunteer their own time in return for nothing.



Then the question is, who exactly does? Altruists?

Cyber
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Anonymous admins?
Post by laurels on Dec 9, 2005, 5:41am


Dec 8, 2005, 9:22pm, Cyber wrote:
Dec 7, 2005, 12:16pm, Ignore me wrote:Bureaucrats, police and politicians don't work for private companies or volunteer their own time in return for nothing.



Then the question is, who exactly does? Altruists?

Cyber



I think right there you've hit the biggest nail-on-the-head....out of all the issues re: Wikipedia that I've seen discussed, this is the biggest one that I HAVEN'T seen discussed (outside of a few snarky comments about what Wales gets out of it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Anonymous admins?
Post by blissyu2 on Dec 11, 2005, 8:48am

Nah, I don't think that admins should have their real names listed. Such a thing invades privacy and encourages cyber stalking. Its not a good idea. Admins or not, they still have a right to privacy. Admins on other places on the internet are still anonymous, so why should Wikipedia be any different?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------