Anonymity, Good or bad Options

[lilburne]

It would be nice to force anyone editing a BLP to do so under their real name. Unfortunately, there would need to be some protection for people in police states or with relatives there.

I was thinking about that, but came to the conclusion that such reasoning doesn't really apply wrt to wikipedia. That is because if you are seriously concerned about repercussions then why are you contributing to an encyclopaedia, especially as you are only supposed to add content based on published sources. If you are putting stuff in that will get you in trouble then you are almost certainly proselytizing in some form or other.

I suspect that one has other outlets other than an encyclopaedia for doing that.

If I were contributing here under my real name, I would not have started a thread referring to the macho posturings by certain admins against Malleus by saying that they had their dicks out. Some [Malleus]fucking cunts[/Malleus] might rather that I had not done so but I think the availability of a certain amount of colourful language is appropriate on this site provided that it doesn't reach Wikifan proportions.

Now there is the real reason for remaining anonymous where you are concerned that the expression of your opinions will somehow get you into trouble. That is fine here, and why you should have the right to be anonymous here. But it doesn't follow that editing WP should be the same, as your opinions and biases should be left outside that particular door.

[Eppur si muove]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikim...ary/007013.html

Agreed completely with what Happy Melon is saying,

I am in complete disagreement with what Peter [Cohen] suggests: that somehow
admins, arbitrators, and high profile editors are less covered by
Wikipedia's norms and polices on pseudonymous editing then regular editors.
…
If you are in disagreement with the policy, that's fine. You're allowed to be wrong.

What a moron.

On re-reading that email I had missed that he threatened to vote against me Peter at future RfAs. Voting against giving authority to someone who advocates a greater degree of scrutiny of those in authority and who does edit under his real name... that just shows the corruption in the minds of Yellow David and his ilk.

[Retrospect]

It's #115 in the world presently, and gets 13 million users per month. Not Wikipedia huge,
but popular among young males--exactly the same group that controls Wikipedia. Or 4chan, for that matter.

"young males - exactly the same group". That's group libel. We're a pretty large and varied group you know. I for one have no intrntion of ever going anywhere within a mile of 4chan.

[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.

[jd turk]

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.

True, fails horribly at both. When I first edited long ago, on two different occasions I had people stalk me to other sites because my user name was a part of my ID there. And I'm not talking about just someone getting upset because their BLP is wrong, these were minor content discussions like removing common names from a college's page.

If everyone is not required to have a committed ID, then no one below crat level should have to do that either. Of course, if everyone is required to go through some kind of identification process, then Wikipedia won't be able to claim huge numbers of editors anymore, because the extra step and verification will cut into those numbers.

WP could easily have accountability, but won't do so because that eliminates the whole "encyclopedia anyone but Ottava can use" slogan.

[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.

[radek]

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 being an Internet chat room some time ago, morons.

...says an (essentially) anonymous guy.

[thekohser]

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 being an Internet chat room some time ago, morons.

It's times like these that I love, absolutely love Gomi.

[Emperor]

Wikipedia is what it is because of anonymity. Take that away and it wouldn't be Wikipedia.

You could fork it first. People have tried.

My problem with the anonymous culture isn't so much even with the community anymore. It's with the supposed charity workers sitting all cushy up in the Foundation offices, making money hand over fist pretending that the output of this community is a legitimate reference work.

[radek]

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 being an Internet chat room some time ago, morons.

It's times like these that I love, absolutely love Gomi.

Except that WR itself is not exactly known for its non-anonymous commentators. In fact, you (and maybe a couple others) aside pretty much anyone on here who's non-anonymous is so because they identified themselves on Wiki. The rest, including the mods, is anonymous.

This seems to be a "anonymity for me but not for thee" kind of sentiment. Eh.

Wikipedia is what it is because of anonymity. Take that away and it wouldn't be Wikipedia.

You could fork it first. People have tried.

My problem with the anonymous culture isn't so much even with the community anymore. It's with the supposed charity workers sitting all cushy up in the Foundation offices, making money hand over fist pretending that the output of this community is a legitimate reference work.

The thing is that it's pretty much the bad equilibrium of a Prisoner's Dilemma game. All the moral issues, and wishful thinking about how it would work if Wikipedia wasn't so messed up aside, I think it's pretty widely believed that anyone who edits Wikipedia non-anonymously is a bit foolish, or at least they were quite naive when they first created their account.

[thekohser]

Except that WR itself is not exactly known for its non-anonymous commentators. In fact, you (and maybe a couple others) aside pretty much anyone on here who's non-anonymous is so because they identified themselves on Wiki. The rest, including the mods, is anonymous.

This seems to be a "anonymity for me but not for thee" kind of sentiment. Eh.

Oh, I'm sorry, Radek... I forgot that Wikipedia Review is now a tax-exempt non-profit that publishes an encyclopedia, and so its participants should be compared on an equal footing with participants in Wikipedia.












Serious question... are you at least partially mentally handicapped?

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia stopped being an Internet chat room some time ago, morons.

No, it still is an internet chat room. It's just that they pretend that it isn't, and enough people fall for their false trade dress (they claim to be an encyclopedia when they really aren't) that it creates a real social issue.

I wonder if it'd be possible to have Wikipedia enjoined from claiming to be an encyclopedia on the grounds that they don't behave like one, by making it into a consumer protection matter. Probably not.

[No one of consequence]

Wikipedia is what it is because of anonymity. Take that away and it wouldn't be Wikipedia.

You could fork it first. People have tried.

My problem with the anonymous culture isn't so much even with the community anymore. It's with the supposed charity workers sitting all cushy up in the Foundation offices, making money hand over fist pretending that the output of this community is a legitimate reference work.

The thing is that it's pretty much the bad equilibrium of a Prisoner's Dilemma game. All the moral issues, and wishful thinking about how it would work if Wikipedia wasn't so messed up aside, I think it's pretty widely believed that anyone who edits Wikipedia non-anonymously is a bit foolish, or at least they were quite naive when they first created their account.

The question that I have is, how do non-anonymous authors and reporters handle harassment in real life?

Take for example the case of D___ M____, a movie producer with a thin skin and hot temper. He decided he didn't like how his article was being handled, so he went after not only the administrator who offended him, but also the administrator's wife and family.

Suppose instead that Mr. M was offended by a report on TMZ or Entertainment Weekly and took off after the reporter. What kind of protections are in place? Do those organizations provide body guards, legal help, unlisted phone numbers and work-only cell phones, or other protections? Or maybe the offended parties practice self-restraint, knowing that attacking the wife of a reporter for a major media outlet could itself be reported, or at least shared within the small circle of entertainment reporters leading to unfavorable coverage from other media outlets.

Wikipedia editors are also susceptible to attacks that just don't work on authors and reporters, such as contacting the employer and asking "was your employee on the clock when he wrote this about me?"

I don't know the right answers, but it certainly seems to be the case that Wikipedia editors are more vulnerable than reporters and book authors would be, at least under some circumstances.

If I ever went back to Wikipedia, I would face a real dilemma. Either use my real name from day 1, which would necessitate completely avoiding certain topic areas and people, or going starting over and going completely anonymous. It's just not worth the hassle to have someone call me on my personal phone and complain about something I did on line.

Responding to the argument that editors should not be able to be judged or banned in quasi-judicial proceedings managed by anonymous people, remember that the worst they can do is kick you off of one web site. If you are so invested that that by itself ruins your life, or even your day, then you need to turn the computer off and find a real charity to volunteer at.

[Peter Damian]

Responding to the argument that editors should not be able to be judged or banned in quasi-judicial proceedings managed by anonymous people, remember that the worst they can do is kick you off of one web site. If you are so invested that that by itself ruins your life, or even your day, then you need to turn the computer off and find a real charity to volunteer at.

Your argument entirely fails to address the problem that Wikipedia is now the most powerful website in the world (it’s not as big as Facebook, but has the potential to shape international public opinion in the way Facebook cannot). Your argument seems a reductio ad absurdum of the principle that the most powerful website on the planet should allow anyone to edit. If you have ‘anyone can edit’ you must have anonymity, for exactly the reason that the staff on London underground have discs with a ID number, but not a name. But the staff on London underground don’t have the ability to attack total strangers they take a dislike to. Those who do, such as journalists, must not be anonymous.

The problem is 'anyone can edit'.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 13th January 2012, 6:14pm

[gomi]

Wikipedia editors are also susceptible to attacks that just don't work on authors and reporters, such as contacting the employer and asking "was your employee on the clock when he wrote this about me?"

That's not an attack, its a question. You, like others, are missing the point. If Wikipedia wants to be a big ol' social networking site, then let people dress up as furries and call themselves Lord Dracon. But if it is a reputable encyclopedia, that shit just won't fly.

The point that it couldn't have started without anonymity is a good one (and one I have addressed elsewhere). But it wasn't credible then, and purports to be now. Things have changed.

One thing that I can point out is that a number of Wikipedia big-wigs are now both well-known and known to be professionals (within some broad definition of that word). For better or worse, Ira Matetsky (Newyorkbrad (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Frank Bednarz (Cool Hand Luke (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) are both practicing lawyers whose careers have not been obviously hindered by their nasty hobby.

Wikipedia, when it comes to the reliability of information, is not different from the rest of the world. Wikipidiots want it to be different because most of them are either partisans with obvious biases or children.

[mbz1]

For better or worse, Ira Matetsky (Newyorkbrad (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Frank Bednarz (Cool Hand Luke (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) are both practicing lawyers whose careers have not been obviously hindered by their nasty hobby.

Could you please clarify what did you mean under "careers have not been obviously hindered ".

[gomi]

For better or worse, Ira Matetsky (Newyorkbrad (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Frank Bednarz (Cool Hand Luke (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) are both practicing lawyers whose careers have not been obviously hindered by their nasty hobby.

Could you please clarify what did you mean under "careers have not been obviously hindered ".

Mr. Bednarz was able to pass the bar and gain a position in a law firm, despite skulking on Wikipedia and participating in its kangaroo form of justice, and Mr. Matetsky, after having his identity revealed and taking a short break, has continued to practice law with no obvious shame. I don't understand in what way the sentence isn't clear.