Anonymity, Good or bad Options

[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.

----- 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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 11th January 2012, 7:01pm

[mbz1]

An interesting conversation that really took place at AN/I



This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 12th January 2012, 8:22pm

[jd turk]

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.

[dogbiscuit]

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.

[radek]

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.

[gomi]

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.

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.

[jd turk]

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.

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.

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.

[gomi]

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.

[LessHorrid vanU]

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.