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

[Peter Damian]

Well Jimbo has spoken (see below). What he is suggesting is that linking to publicly available items like Facebook, personal blogs, interviews in mainstream media etc may not be the sort of harassment and danger to personal security that some Wikipedians think it is. And I think he is right.

I don't think you understand my position very well, then. I think I'm far more concerned about anonymous and pseudonymous editors than either ArbCom or the community at large. I think that if I'm out of step with the community and Arbcom, it is in precisely the opposite direction that you suggest. I think that outing is a very serious issue, that privacy is very important. I further think that it is undermined by idiotic policies that suggest that posting information that's publicly available is somehow a privacy violation. That approach undermines the ethical case for privacy in a very damaging way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 19th February 2012, 11:39am

[thekohser]

Well Jimbo has spoken (see below). What he is suggesting is that linking to publicly available items like Facebook, personal blogs, interviews in mainstream media etc may not be the sort of harassment and danger to personal security that some Wikipedians think it is. And I think he is right.

I don't think you understand my position very well, then. I think I'm far more concerned about anonymous and pseudonymous editors than either ArbCom or the community at large. I think that if I'm out of step with the community and Arbcom, it is in precisely the opposite direction that you suggest. I think that outing is a very serious issue, that privacy is very important. I further think that it is undermined by idiotic policies that suggest that posting information that's publicly available is somehow a privacy violation. That approach undermines the ethical case for privacy in a very damaging way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess it would be okay for me to post all of Jimbo's divorce records, then?

[lilburne]

I don't think you understand my position very well, then. I think I'm far more concerned about anonymous and pseudonymous editors than either ArbCom or the community at large. I think that if I'm out of step with the community and Arbcom, it is in precisely the opposite direction that you suggest. I think that outing is a very serious issue, that privacy is very important. I further think that it is undermined by idiotic policies that suggest that posting information that's publicly available is somehow a privacy violation. That approach undermines the ethical case for privacy in a very damaging way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess it would be okay for me to post all of Jimbo's divorce records, then?

Well he's consistent, and there is some logic there too. If one says all of that publicly available private information is off linits where does it end?

Most of the BLPs are a collection of publicly available private information. Where some celeb's kids go to school, where there live, who they might have played away from home with, which bathhouses they might have frequented.