Anonymity vs. Accountability
Post by Igor Alexander on Dec 7, 2005, 8:04am

A few years ago, the RCMP and other Canadian law enforcement agencies were pushing for a mandatory government registry of Internet users. It was never implemented, but if it had been, it might have spelled the end of anonymous Internet usage for most Canadians.

It would be harder to defame people on an Internet without anonymity. OTOH, I think an Internet without anonymity would be a greatly impoverished one. As it stands, someone can anonymously voice their opinions or share information, no matter how unpopular or controversial, without having to worry about losing their job, receiving death threats, embarassing their family, or being dragged in front of a tribunal for thought crimes. Free debate as it happens on the Internet simply cannot be done in the "real world." If it wasn't for anonymity, the Internet would be nothing more than an extension of the Yellow Pages and of the corporate media by now.

How do we balance the need for accountability with the freedom of anonymity? Or is the balance already fine as is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Anonymity vs. Accountability
Post by caldecott on Dec 7, 2005, 11:07am

The type of issues you're talking about apply to chat rooms, message boards, and webpages (which in fact, aren't really anonymous either). Some schmuck with a cheesy Geocities page can say "John Smith regularly molests his Basset Hound", but it's not the same thing as when an online encyclopedia says it. Wikipedia unfortunately carries a certain gravitas.

Amazing as it may seem, many people don't even grasp that Wikipedia is user-edited, even though there's a big fat "Edit this page!" link right in the center. They think it's just a normal encyclopedia like any other. Especially if they're reading the entry off of Answers.com, or any of the other Wikipedia mirrors.

There's just no getting around the fact that millions of people have the reading comprehension skills of a skate key. (Even on this board, where people are posting comments like "If you don't like Wikipedia, don't use it", totally missing the point of the criticisms)

Normally, I would say that it's not a website's fault that the public is stupid. But the difference here is that the public is writing the website. And an encyclopedia that's written and edited by your grandmother, the paper boy, some homeless guy killing time on a library computer, and your racist Uncle Ned is no encyclopedia at all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Anonymity vs. Accountability
Post by Ignore me on Dec 7, 2005, 12:19pm

You just have no idea how many people react to Geocities pages, do you? Most of the same people who don't know Wikipedia can't be edited are the same kind of people who trust any webpage that looks semi-reliable, including Joe Schmuck's blog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Anonymity vs. Accountability
Post by caldecott on Dec 7, 2005, 12:34pm

I think we're talking about two distinct degrees of idiot.... you're talking about idiots who believe anything they read, and I'm talking about idiots who mistake Wikipedia for a real encyclopedia. However, I suspect you have more experience with either type of idiocy, so I will cleave to your judgment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------