The Use Of Pseudonyms Is a Prima Facie Symptom, Of Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction (EMAMD) Options Rating

Resolved —

The Use Of Pseudonyms Is A Prima Facie Symptom Of Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction

'Nuff Said

Jon

Notice. Pseudonymaniacs Anonymous Meets Here Wednesday Mornings, 3:00 AM.

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Sat 26th April 2008, 2:24pm

Is the initiation of this thread prima facie evidence that the author has now eschewed the practice, going forward, of registering pseudonymous accounts on Wikipedia?

The Use Of Pseudonyms Is A Prima Facie Symptom Of Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction

Hogwash.

"If everyone knew what others said of them, no one would be friends" (Hugh Prather)

That goes double for political opinions, and general banter.

Enforced real identity-internet identification, in the current US legal environment which is completely unconcerned with privacy, not to mention libel or defamation, is just plain f-king stupid, as a suggestion. (Really, it's dumb anywhere, but especially under US law).

I don't know how you guys can see it as otherwise. (Though most people on WR seem to do).

The operant assumption that real identification of, for example, Wikipedia Administrators would cause a sea change in the abuse quotient is not only theoretically flawed, but empirically proven to be incorrect. Durova, Jimbo, Guy Chapman, David Gerard, Gwernol. They (and many others on Wikipedia) are all heavy handed persons whos identities are known, and they don't give a crap. The issue is POWER, and a LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY (legal or otherwise) to prevent abuse.

In the meantime, claiming that true-identity identification is going to solve things is a bunch of hooey, sorry, Jon. I've never failed to be confused by your continued harboring of this belief, but I suppose it will always be one thing upon which we agree to disagree.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sat 26th April 2008, 3:20pm

Enforced real identity-internet identification, in the current US legal environment which is completely unconcerned with privacy, not to mention libel or defamation, is just plain f-king stupid, as a suggestion. (Really, it's dumb anywhere, but especially under US law).

It's not even so much about libel, as just common sense and security on the internet, as well as just plain reality. Children are encouraged not to reveal their real name for their safety, and most adults choose to due to it being just common sense as you don't know the level of sanity or know the disposition of people you are talking to, and due to talking to far more people and a larger range of people online, there's more risk.

A lot of people who use their real name online, are newcomers to the internet. Look at the presumed grief such as his banning from wikipedia being googlable under his real name, because Jon used his real name as his username. If he'd used a pseudonym in the first place that's far less likely to have happened.

"If you are an adult who is new to the Internet:

* While the tips for students below are geared toward teens and children, adults need to stay safe online, too, and can use these basic guidelines to do so."

" * What you look like—your appearance, gender, age
* Where you might be—address, school, workplace, hangouts, clubs
* Who you are—your real name, not even your first name, teams you play on, bank account info
* And NEVER share a pic of yourself—avoid posting your pic openly or emailing it to those you don't know well offline already"

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:bjvK25Z...clnk&cd=9&gl=uk

This was written by a US senator.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Sat 26th April 2008, 7:22pm

It's not even so much about libel, as just common sense and security on the internet, as well as just plain reality. Children are encouraged not to reveal their real name for their safety, and most adults choose to due to it being just common sense as you don't know the level of sanity or know the disposition of people you are talking to, and due to talking to far more people and a larger range of people online, there's more risk.

A lot of people who use their real name online, are newcomers to the internet. Look at the presumed grief such as his banning from wikipedia being googlable under his real name, because Jon used his real name as his username. If he'd used a pseudonym in the first place that's far less likely to have happened.

"If you are an adult who is new to the Internet:

* While the tips for students below are geared toward teens and children, adults need to stay safe online, too, and can use these basic guidelines to do so."

" * What you look like—your appearance, gender, age
* Where you might be—address, school, workplace, hangouts, clubs
* Who you are—your real name, not even your first name, teams you play on, bank account info
* And NEVER share a pic of yourself—avoid posting your pic openly or emailing it to those you don't know well offline already"

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:bjvK25Z...clnk&cd=9&gl=uk

This was written by a US senator.

That's perfectly fine, if Wikipedia is just another social network. But it is advertised as an encyclopedia. And a good encyclopedia cannot be written if there is reason to fear identification.

But it is advertised as an encyclopedia. And a good encyclopedia cannot be written if there is reason to fear identification.

It's still the internet, and internet risks apply. It's a wiki, that anyone can edit. I.e., you could meet any old dodgy nutter such as Amorrow. If you used your real name would you feel 100% comfortable with him knowing it, especially if you were female? Or if you were "david shankbone" and used your real name, with the threats of violence that he has received, I think you would feel more intimidated and be more at risk, as the person would have more chance of finding out where you live.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Sat 26th April 2008, 9:16pm

It's still the internet, and internet risks apply. It's a wiki, that anyone can edit. I.e., you could meet any old dodgy nutter such as Amorrow. If you used your real name would you feel 100% comfortable with him knowing it, especially if you were female? Or if you were "david shankbone" and used your real name, with the threats of violence that he has received, I think you would feel more intimidated and be more at risk, as the person would have more chance of finding out where you live.

I'm generally *not* in favor of internet identity-openness, given my experience, and things I've observed in the past 10 years.

Having said that, I disagree with your arguments about identity for publishing personsl. What about the reporters in the Post, or the Times? Couldn't they also be subjects of targeting by weirdos? Sure. Actually anyone with their name in the paper has the same problem. So I disagree with that premise.

Why did D Shankbone get a death threat? Do they know who did it, and what their beef was against him?

Given that wikipedia is an amateur-run venture, and more of a chat board than a professional system, anonymity is acceptable. What's not acceptable is that the behavioral limits are absent, and the governing is collusive, and corrupt and there's no feedback loop for issues whatsoever. So something is out of kilter. I don't have a proposed solution for it, personally.

That's perfectly fine, if Wikipedia is just another social network. But it is advertised as an encyclopedia. And a good encyclopedia cannot be written if there is reason to fear identification.

I agree with that there there shouldn't be a reason to fear identification due to abuse. And I agree that a normal publication normally implies identification. Wikipedia is not normal.

Wikipedia has a way of bringing out the worst in normal, reasonable people, once they have pushed them beyond all reason.

I suppose you're right about that in that some people might believe the hype

Hype? Its got credibility. Most people have no clue that its a giant chat board. You do, but you hang out on the net. Most people don't.

and

not think of it as being run just like any other website/ forum and with the same risks. Although most consider the possibility, as evidenced by the fact that most people there use a screen name when they join, as they do on any other site.

Most wikipedians are kids, or tech-intensive people, so they do this as a rule, from chat-board experience. The experts join wikipedia expecting it to be the real deal, and many of them aren't chat board savvy. Thats why many of them get nailed.


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sat 26th April 2008, 11:09pm

It's still the internet, and internet risks apply. It's a wiki, that anyone can edit. I.e., you could meet any old dodgy nutter such as Amorrow. If you used your real name would you feel 100% comfortable with him knowing it, especially if you were female? Or if you were "david shankbone" and used your real name, with the threats of violence that he has received, I think you would feel more intimidated and be more at risk, as the person would have more chance of finding out where you live.

I'm generally *not* in favor of internet identity-openness, given my experience, and things I've observed in the past 10 years.

Having said that, I disagree with your arguments about identity for publishing personsl. What about the reporters in the Post, or the Times? Couldn't they also be subjects of targeting by weirdos? Sure. Actually anyone with their name in the paper has the same problem. So I disagree with that premise.

Did I say anything about that? You mean in newspapers, or on wiki? I only really meant on a website such as wiki.

Given that wikipedia is an amateur-run venture, and more of a chat board than a professional system, anonymity is acceptable. What's not acceptable is that the behavioral limits are absent, and the governing is collusive, and corrupt

That is one of the main points as far as I can see- the system is not so bad, but how the clique runs it and enforces it is wrong.

I agree with that there there shouldn't be a reason to fear identification due to abuse. And I agree that a normal publication normally implies identification. Wikipedia is not normal.

It's not a ''publication''- not as in a newspaper etc. Maybe slightly more so now it is said to be coming out in book form in Germany, but even so. You can bet the published version will be a sanitized version

Hype? Its got credibility. Most people have no clue that its a giant chat board. You do, but you hang out on the net. Most people don't.

Most people hang out on the net to an extent nowadays, especially younger people. People don't even have to be netheads to have heard a bit about what wikipedia's like. A friend of my mother's had read about the Rachel Marsden article doctoring or some other Jimbo and wikipedia corruption scandal, even on the BBC website.

The experts join wikipedia expecting it to be the real deal, and many of them aren't chat board savvy. Thats why many of them get nailed.

That goes back to the 'new to the internet' point. They would have similar (though perhaps not half as intense) newcomer's problems to other sites. Life is depressing like that- harsh realities are usually learned by painful or frustrating experience. Especially on Wikipedia

Actually I know someone who's an economics expert in his 50s, and he tried to contribute to wiki, but he just kept replacing an article or parts of it with a long explanation of his own. He couldn't interact with other editors. It comes across as an autistic lack of social skills or a superiority complex to others. But maybe it was being new to the workings of a wiki. My mother's friend didn't know what a smilie : ) meant and so she would get in more rows with people as she didn't realise when they were not meaning to be as abrasive as it otherwise looked.

This is probably one of the reasons why there's less older contributors to wiki.

Did I say anything about that? You mean in newspapers, or on wiki? I only really meant on a website such as wiki.

That is one of the main points as far as I can see- the system is not so bad, but how the clique runs it and enforces it is wrong.

It's not a ''publication''- not as in a newspaper etc. Maybe slightly more so now it is said to be coming out in book form in Germany, but even so. You can bet the published version will be a sanitized version

I think that you vastly underestimate the level of attention that people who have nothing to do with Wikipedia (or the net in general) to things that you do. The reason Wikipedia has been able to function as it does, is that most people don't realize its operational modalities.

Most people hang out on the net to an extent nowadays, especially younger people. People don't even have to be netheads to have heard a bit about what wikipedia's like.

Not everyone, and not everywhere, sorry.

A friend of my mother's had read about the Rachel Marsden article doctoring or some other Jimbo and wikipedia corruption scandal, even on the BBC website.

In bits and pieces. Sure. But its not anywhere near where it could be

Actually I know someone who's an economics expert in his 50s, and he tried to contribute to wiki, but he just kept replacing an article or parts of it with a long explanation of his own. He couldn't interact with other editors. It comes across as an autistic lack of social skills or a superiority complex to others. But maybe it was being new to the workings of a wiki. My mother's friend didn't know what a smilie : ) meant and so she would get in more rows with people as she didn't realise when they were not meaning to be as abrasive as it otherwise looked.

This is probably one of the reasons why there's less older contributors to wiki.

That and most people dont like to work for free.

I think that you vastly underestimate the level of attention that people who have nothing to do with Wikipedia (or the net in general) to things that you do. The reason Wikipedia has been able to function as it does, is that most people don't realize its operational modalities.

I've not said anything about the level of attention I think it is paid. I think sometimes people on this site "vastly overestimate" the level to which if they knew about the clique etc, people outside wiki would care to the extent of intervening, or whether they would even be able to do so. It will take a lawsuit. Because otherwise, no-one cares enough to act. At the most, they laugh or mock at the degeneracy of Jimbo, and tut at the corruption. Just because it doesn't effect them personally- which is what it takes for most people to do something, unfortunately. It's difficult I know, but we can only do our bit as much as we are inclined, and other than that seek the serenity to accept the things we are not entirely able change

Most people hang out on the net to an extent nowadays, especially younger people. People don't even have to be netheads to have heard a bit about what wikipedia's like.

Not everyone, and not everywhere, sorry.

I've not said anything about the level of attention I think it is paid. I think sometimes people on this site "vastly overestimate" the level to which if they knew about the clique etc, people outside wiki would care to the extent of intervening, or whether they would even be able to do so.

Not really. No one vastly overestimates much here. The people on this site are pragmatic. But they understand that most people who have not used Wikipedia don't know how weird it all is. And people who have an inkling that it is weird, or dangerous, don't understand why, and usually dont have the motivation to learn about it.

It will take a lawsuit. Because otherwise, no-one cares enough to act.

Chicken and egg. That lawsuit you are talking about has built in preventative protection. Someone needs to care to change the laws, so there can be a lawsuit. (repeat recursion).

It's difficult I know, but we can only do our bit as much as we are inclined, and other than that seek the serenity to accept the things we are not entirely able change

This isn't alcoholism. It's Wikipedia. Anything can be changed. It only depends how much energy you want to invest in it. Unfortunately this is not a high profit career (exposing Wikipedia).

I said [people hang out on the net] to an extent. Of course not everyone knows what Wikipedia's like. But you must admit that several more stories have got into the mainstream media about it in recent months- I've heard the Marsden scandal discussed on Radio 5, for instance.

No, most people don't know what Wikipedia is like. Even lawyers who deal with internet content matters don't know yet. There has been 4-5 newspapers stories and so what. Wikipedia got a few million dollars the next week. Think those donors knew the full story? Think they surf the net? Nope. Nope. They probably think such stories are banter. And I dont know what Radio 5 is, just to make a point.

Most of those who contribute, don't view it entirely as work. It's a hobby (sad as it may be.)

Yes. So is housecleaning.

It's only the upper eschelons and clique, and perhaps some personality types, that are devoted to accomplishing the Great Work of "The Project", or at least pay lip service to that while pursuing some other personal goal there. The rest of us often edit for enjoyment and would admit to that.

Yes, we are all aware of that.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sun 27th April 2008, 10:00am