Power of Wikipedia + Lack of Accountability = Bad News, Does anyone disagree with that? Options

[Rootology]

Don't let this beautiful fantasy about a wikipeeple's revolution get in the way of seeing the economic and political realities.

And you haven't answered my questions in any way, and have only supplied an answer that I'm ignorant. Why are you afraid to answer point by point? You have no defense, is the problem. Here, try again. I'd like to see responses from others, as well, to this:

What are your thoughts on Wikileaks, and anonymously created websites in general? Should a person compiling all available information, say on the Scientologists (who with their Fair Play policy WILL hurt your career and livelihood for speaking out against them)? What about a person compiling information on a website about China, Burma, or the Saudi government? Should they be identifying themselves also, even though it could get them killed?

[Jon Awbrey]

I have answered all of these questions, time and again, for the last 2008–2005 = 3 years, but people who are ever blowing the kinds of bubbles you are constantly blowing have never shown the least bit of cognizance of the obvious. The fact is that people who haven't been living in some kind of bubble-world since infancy will know enough to answer these questions for themselves, and the rest of you have got your brains so full of bubbles that you can't seem to hear the pinprick coming.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 28th May 2008, 6:48pm

[Rootology]

I have answered all of these questions, time and again, for the last 2008–2005 = 3 years, but people who are ever blowing the kinds of bubbles you are constantly blowing have never shown the least bit of cognizance of the obvious. The fact is that people who haven't been living in some kind of bubble-world since infancy will know enough to answer the questions for themselves, and the rest of you have got your brains so full of bubbles that you can't seem to hear the pinprick coming.

The pinprick where the general Internet will be no longer anonymous? Never happen, at least not in the United States. Any attempt to restrict the Internet to do this will be met with literal information warfare. Force anonymity by law? The proxies and TORs of the world will take over for distribution of "restricted" information, with technology in place already. Laws passed to bar carriers from accepting traffic from "restricted" sources, such as proxies and TORs? New technology will be trivially created to circumvent that. This entire scenario is a stock staple of much futurist-type fiction and literature, and that fiction generally comes to pass historically.

If it ends up where a "web site" such as one circulating news that is not from accredited sources is restricted comes to pass, in a world where something like http://www.indymedia.org or a private website detailing wrongdoing by a group, government or organization is pushed underground by changing laws, because they want to post their information anonymously, and free of any possible reprisal, human ingenuity and simple binary technological advances will push right past any childish attempts to restrict them. For every law or counter-technological solution, those who want things to be "out" are always ten steps ahead.

File sharing networks compromised? They invented WASTE and shared the idea behind it--now anyone can make an utterly secure file sharing network, and they're up and running, and all but impregnable. Want to go bigger? Create a darknet. If they try to shut down such things it will lead to anonymously hosted entities like Freenet basically living on darknets, or with compromised nodes like botnets, and over encryption to boot. Given that in 1st and 2nd world countries traffic speeds and costs are both rising and dropping exponentially, it will be in 10-20 years trivial from a speed perspective to run an entire operation like this off of compromised nodes on a botnet, over encryption, piggy-backing on the existing network infrastructures (IPV6, by then, I'd hope) already in place. To most high-level, even government inspection, it will be white noise and unstoppable.

Trust me, from a technological standpoint, there is no bubble waiting to burst. Maybe if we run out of oil, and petroleum and plastic products, and all nations are reduced to 3rd world status. But you know what? I know how to run a mimeograph machine, and so do many, many others, and the message will STILL get out.

This post has been edited by Rootology: Wed 28th May 2008, 7:02pm

[thekohser]

Root, I think Jonny is saying that the pinprick is coming to pop the bubbles of "anonymous authority". I'll bet Jonny sees a future where you can print up whatever you want on the Internet, or on paper flyers on telephone poles, or shouted from rooftops... about whatever China, Scientology, Myanmar, Saudi topic you want.

But if you're going to do it anonymously, don't expect anyone to pay serious attention to its credibility.

Jon, sorry if I failed to interpret your meaning properly.

[Rootology]

Root, I think Jonny is saying that the pinprick is coming to pop the bubbles of "anonymous authority". I'll bet Jonny sees a future where you can print up whatever you want on the Internet, or on paper flyers on telephone poles, or shouted from rooftops... about whatever China, Scientology, Myanmar, Saudi topic you want.

But if you're going to do it anonymously, don't expect anyone to pay serious attention to its credibility.

But that's one point I disagree on as well. Wikipedia has it's issues, that's true, and I'm NOT disputing that. But if we took an independent website that was an authority on something--let's say the House of Saud, Exxon Mobile, or Halliburton. If the information is sound, and accurate, shouldn't that be entirely then the reader's discretion alone to determine it's weight and value... if the author of HouseofSaud-watch.com, ExxonMobile-watch.com, or Halliburton-watch.com is anonymous? On the Wikipedia front, Jimbo had dismissed WikiTruth as a hoax, that they fictionalized content, etc., until WikiTruth simply posted them I think hovering admin tools over Jimmy's own user page, wasn't it, and by demonstrating they had access to Deleted and Oversighted revisions. They're still anonymous, and an authority.

My whole point is that the MESSAGE is what matters and has value--not the author. An author or expert is just a name, or face, and not important. A Dickens novel is a Dickens novel in quality, regardless if he published it under the name Charles Dickens or Pierre Dumont; a Twain tale is a Twain tale in quality where he published in his name, or under the non de plume of "Farty McStinks Alot". A solid analysis on finance by Greenspan is a solid analysis of finance, regardless of whether it's written in his name, or if he publishes to http://treasury-dude.blogspot.com.

A message worth reading or publishing is one that stands on it's value independent of it's author's name.

[Jon Awbrey]

Root, I think Jonny is saying that the pinprick is coming to pop the bubbles of "anonymous authority". I'll bet Jonny sees a future where you can print up whatever you want on the Internet, or on paper flyers on telephone poles, or shouted from rooftops … about whatever China, Scientology, Myanmar, Saudi topic you want.

But if you're going to do it anonymously, don't expect anyone to pay serious attention to its credibility.

Jon, sorry if I failed to interpret your meaning properly.

Yes, thanx, near enuff, I was getting liteheaded there just trying to take in all that N2O.

Jon

[Moulton]

I believe I've said before that Wikipedia is more an information aggregator than always an encyclopedia.

It's mainly a disinfotainment site.

[Kato]

But that's one point I disagree on as well. Wikipedia has it's issues, that's true, and I'm NOT disputing that. But if we took an independent website that was an authority on something--let's say the House of Saud, Exxon Mobile, or Halliburton. If the information is sound, and accurate, shouldn't that be entirely then the reader's discretion alone to determine it's weight and value... if the author of HouseofSaud-watch.com, ExxonMobile-watch.com, or Halliburton-watch.com is anonymous? On the Wikipedia front, Jimbo had dismissed WikiTruth as a hoax, that they fictionalized content, etc., until WikiTruth simply posted them I think hovering admin tools over Jimmy's own user page, wasn't it, and by demonstrating they had access to Deleted and Oversighted revisions. They're still anonymous, and an authority.

Wikitruth "an authority"?

Listen Rootology, anonymity is only acceptable as an authority in adult society in the most extreme circumstances, and with certain caveats. Almost none of which apply to Wikipedia. But unaccountability is a lot more than just whether someone is known or not. The identities of the WMF are known, but they remain largely unaccountable for the content they publish. The whole process lacks any checks or balances, nor recourse for the abused victims. The culture is deliberately designed to avoid accountability in all its forms from top to bottom.

[Rootology]

The whole process lacks any checks or balances, nor recourse for the abused victims. The culture is deliberately designed to avoid accountability in all its forms from top to bottom.

But no more than the rest of the Internet. Getting unaccountable publishing ability on the Internet is absolutely trivial, even outside of Wikipedia.

1. TOR
2. Gmail
3. Blogspot
4. Untraceable blog

So what is the definition of being accountable online? Is it posting responsible material? Or is it for someone you write about (be it a person, organization, corporation, or government) to be able to track down the real identity of a given author? If it's to force accountability by tracking it down to the ultimate author, my point is that ultimately this is a loser's game. It's FAR easier to track down in most cases a real name of even the most elusive Wikipedia author today, if they do something that warrants something that merits getting United States law enforcement involved. Make a username from your home Charter or AOL account, under an anonymous name, and post a threat to the President. The WMF will be made to give up your IP very fast, and Charter or AOL will give you up very fast. Post anything that merits legal discovery of your IP, and you're tagged. WMF leads to your ISP leads to your billing records leads to you.

However, that's the caveat. It's GOT to be something legally actionable in the jurisdiction involved. And then, just like with any website--not specific to Wikipedia--you have to get past the WMF lawyers and your ISP's lawyers. If it's a borderline case not involving a clear cut legal violation or a court order, good luck. But that's the way it should be for any anonymous speech if you are clever enough to cover your tracks. In any event, are we holding people accountable for hurting others, breaking the law (defamation) or now simply for using Wikipedia? Why no outcry for Livejournal users, or Blogspot users?

This is honestly starting to feel like a backlash against ANY attempts to enjoy totally anonymous speech, free of repercussion. The Internet has made that happen, yes. So is this a fight against internet culture, or Wikipedia? And if you (never happen, as I've detailed at length above) did somehow legally quash online anonymity, would it be better if it was forced utterly underground, in simple technological means that would make it impossible to track authors, rather than the hard it is now?

Wikitruth "an authority"?

Ironically, Wikitruth is an authority on internal Wikipedia process, from the time they were active, since they had access to hidden internal materials (deletions, oversights) and were willing to broadcast them. It's not much, but it certainly counts.

[Jon Awbrey]

I think that this thread went off topic somewhere about the time that Rootology weighed in with his Unaccountable Liteness Of Being Rootologous, so maybe that tangent could be split off to some interphase dimension or something?

Jon

[Rootology]

I think that this thread went off topic somewhere about the time that Rootology weighed in with his Unaccountable Liteness Of Being Rootologous, so maybe that tangent could be split off to some interphase dimension or something?

Kato asked:

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

And I replied. No one has successfully refuted my statements, and have only dismissed them out of hand. I guess I hit a raw nerve by pointing out that Wikipedia's model is the model of the Internet's current culture, and by explaining how you CAN'T stop anonymous speech due to technical limitations. I don't believe my basically nuking the "We hate WP" lovefest this one time with facts deserves burying. The question as posed in this thread was completely wrong, and an attack on the unlimited and unrestricted free speech power that makes the Internet the valuable communications tool it is. If you have a problem with the points I raised, prove them wrong with a good argument or facts. It shouldn't be hard, right?

This post has been edited by Rootology: Wed 28th May 2008, 9:34pm

[Jon Awbrey]

I think that this thread went off topic somewhere about the time that Rootology weighed in with his Unaccountable Liteness Of Being Rootologous, so maybe that tangent could be split off to some interphase dimension or something?

Kato asked:

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

And I replied. No one has successfully refuted my statements, and have only dismissed them out of hand. I guess I hit a raw nerve by pointing out that Wikipedia's model is the model of the Internet's current culture, and by explaining how you CAN'T stop anonymous speech due to technical limitations. I don't believe my basically nuking the "We hate WP" lovefest this one time with facts deserves burying. The question as posed in this thread was completely wrong, and an attack on the valuable unlimited free speech power that makes the Internet the valuable communications tool it is.

You have the Internet confused with Usenet.

Are you saying that the Wikipedia model doesn't present serious problems?

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 28th May 2008, 9:38pm

[Rootology]

You have the Internet confused with Usenet.

No, I'm not, and what does Usenet have to do with anything? Usenet was just one facet of the wider Internet, and you could be just as utterly anonymous there as anywhere if you knew what you were doing back then.

Are you saying that the Wikipedia model doesn't present serious problems?

I never said that, no. I also never said that the lack of accountability wasn't a problem; my point was that it can't be stopped, and singling out Wikipedia as the root of Internet evil in this thread and it's questioning was misguided as I demonstrated. Unaccountable and utterly anonymous speech has perfect valid ethical and social uses, and it is at times required for the safety and betterment of mankind. My other point was that it's technologically impossible long-term to actually stop unaccountable and anonymous communications. It simply can't be done.

This post has been edited by Rootology: Wed 28th May 2008, 9:54pm

[Jon Awbrey]

Pure Helium …

You obviously have no clue how much easier it is for some org with money to burn to manipulate a faucet like Wikipedia than it is for them to manipulate the mainstream media.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 28th May 2008, 10:08pm

[Rootology]

You obviously have no clue how much easier it is for some org with money to burn to manipulate a faucet like Wikipedia than it is for them to manipulate the mainstream media.

Which isn't what Kato asked, and this is deflection. So the big fault with Wikipedia boils down to 1) It's popular; 2) It's open. 3) It's centralized (?)

[Jon Awbrey]

You obviously have no clue how much easier it is for some org with money to burn to manipulate a faucet like Wikipedia than it is for them to manipulate the mainstream media.

Which isn't what Kato asked, and this is deflection. So the big fault with Wikipedia boils down to 1) It's popular; 2) It's open. 3) It's centralized (?)

How many marks can a conman con if conman can con marks into buying the idea that they can't be conned?

A lot.

Jon

[Rootology]

And we have enforced derailment. YOU WIN AT THE INTARNEBS JON. Sigh.

[darbyl]

I never said that, no. I also never said that the lack of accountability wasn't a problem; my point was that it can't be stopped, and singling out Wikipedia as the root of Internet evil in this thread and it's questioning was misguided as I demonstrated. Unaccountable and utterly anonymous speech has perfect valid ethical and social uses, and it is at times required for the safety and betterment of mankind. My other point was that it's technologically impossible long-term to actually stop unaccountable and anonymous communications. It simply can't be done.

Accountability has nothing to do with anonymity. The board members of WikiMedia Foundation are all known people, and yet they remain utterly unaccountable for the monstrosity that is Wikipedia. If you can't understand that concept, then any answer you give to Kato's initial question is meaningless.

[Rootology]

Accountability has nothing to do with anonymity. The board members of WikiMedia Foundation are all known people, and yet they remain utterly unaccountable for the monstrosity that is Wikipedia. If you can't understand that concept, then any answer you give to Kato's initial question is meaningless.

Unaccountable is not what they are. Who HAS tried to hold them accountable under legal processes that are binding in the United States yet, beside Barbara Bauer, which is still underway? IF that case (or a similar one) is tossed on Section 230 grounds and the verdict holds through all appeals processes, then yes, they're unaccountable. Until then, they may be accountable.


And accountability IS generally tied to anonymity. If I used my upthread example and made a blog entirely via untraceable proxies, who exactly would I be accountable to?

[dogbiscuit]

Accountability has nothing to do with anonymity. The board members of WikiMedia Foundation are all known people, and yet they remain utterly unaccountable for the monstrosity that is Wikipedia. If you can't understand that concept, then any answer you give to Kato's initial question is meaningless.

Unaccountable is not what they are. Who HAS tried to hold them accountable under legal processes that are binding in the United States yet, beside Barbara Bauer, which is still underway? IF that case (or a similar one) is tossed on Section 230 grounds and the verdict holds through all appeals processes, then yes, they're unaccountable. Until then, they may be accountable.


And accountability IS generally tied to anonymity. If I used my upthread example and made a blog entirely via untraceable proxies, who exactly would I be accountable to?

Accountability means much more than legal liability, in fact I would think that if the only motivation for doing something was minimum legal compliance, then you have pretty good evidence of a failure of accountability. I expect to see words like ethics, morals, honesty, truth when people talk about accountability, not "You can't sue, so I must be doing it right."

The main issue on accountability is that Wikipedia has declared a unilateral independence from the norms of the world. People involved like to pretend that they are in some novel world where there are no references that can apply and no responsibility outside of Wikipedia. The moral framework of how we would establish suitable rules would not be that established by some excitable teenagers Who Think they Know Best. (It feels like the hell of living in a Carpenters' album - bless the beasts and the children, with a bit of George Benson thrown in, or perhaps it is Catholicism - the sinfulness of carnal knowledge has corrupted the over 18s, they must be ignored?

So let's not confuse the issue. If WMF want really anonymity of users, then they should stand in that user's place and take responsibility - be accountable in their stead. Presumably, someone is saying that the anonymous voice is so important, it stands above all others' rights. If they don't believe that, why allow such a platform?