Full Version: Privacy Gone Amok
The problem is that with AGF, any discussion of biased editing has to be accompanied with evidence of motive. Without that, COI wouldn't be a problem at all
QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Thu 14th August 2008, 7:53pm) 
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 14th August 2008, 3:39pm)
Do you reveal your name to everyone you meet on the street?
Do you provide your ID when you go into stores?
What about those under 18 which child protection laws prohibit from having their personal information revealed?
It seems that your "solution" does not match reality and would only cause greater problems.
1. Not really. Then again, I tend to drive everywhere.
2. If store policy requires it. I don't have any qualms providing identification if I pay by credit or check.
3. Laws vary from region to region, you know. As far as I know in the US the age was 13, not 18. I'm also not a real supporter of children editing wikipedia. I mean, most adults don't even know how to apply BLP properly, let alone children.
4. Then again, I'm also supposed to show my real name on a court docket in case I would be ever charged with libel or slander. Even if it was Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon.
Here's the thing. It's not really my solution, just some musings on the subject. There's two schools of thought, and I'm in between. I recognize the benefits of real names (tying it to a real identity tends to limit outrageous behavior), but I also recognize that it won't be a magic bullet (some people will still keep at that behavior regardless.)
I'm not quite sure if there is a real solution, which is why I was asking DL his thoughts on those implications of a real name policy.
Easily addressed - checks and credit cards are having you claim that you are an individual to address a cash system. This is a protective measure against fraud.
And court cases? Thats a legal matter. Far different than putting together an encyclopedia.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 14th August 2008, 7:59pm)
An off-the-wall statement like "anonymity is the basis of all civilization" doesn't advance the discussion much, except for providing an opportunity to review and restate more meaningful contributions to the discussion. That is at best a mixed blessing if not an outright burden.
Its not off the wall. Once you start demanding everyone knows who everyone is, and demanding that they are always identified, you have entered into a police state, which nullifies any ability for social independence or for there to be a society at all.
This is basic sociology.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 14th August 2008, 3:17pm)
Its not off the wall. Once you start demanding everyone knows who everyone is, and demanding that they are always identified, you have entered into a police state, which nullifies any ability for social independence or for there to be a society at all.
This is basic sociology.
More like basic strawmanning. You have constructed a false dichotomy.This is basic sociology.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 14th August 2008, 2:17pm)
Its not off the wall. Once you start demanding everyone knows who everyone is, and demanding that they are always identified, you have entered into a police state, which nullifies any ability for social independence or for there to be a society at all.
This is basic sociology.
Such things are commonplace knowledge, if you've studied soc - but not if you have not.
So you guys are arguing from each a different religious perspective, essentially.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 14th August 2008, 2:24pm)
More like basic strawmanning. You have constructed a false dichotomy.
Strawmanning?
I think he has a point, but it stops when he begins to equate societal foundations with particular rights and privileges. Because those are an invention and an ideal, and they were (and apparently remain) iconoclastic, not an automaticity.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 14th August 2008, 8:24pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 14th August 2008, 3:17pm)
Its not off the wall. Once you start demanding everyone knows who everyone is, and demanding that they are always identified, you have entered into a police state, which nullifies any ability for social independence or for there to be a society at all.
This is basic sociology.
More like basic strawmanning. You have constructed a false dichotomy.This is basic sociology.
Straw man? No. I put up the original statement, you attacked it. If it was a straw man, then you would have had no ability to attack it.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You were wrong, and you can continue to dig, or you can just shut up. I doubt you would ever choose the third option which is to admit that you were wrong, so I don't bother suggesting it.
Oh no.
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Thu 14th August 2008, 8:29pm)
Strawmanning?
I think he has a point, but it stops when he begins to equate societal foundations with particular rights and privileges. Because those are an invention and an ideal, and they were (and apparently remain) iconoclastic, not an automaticity.Well, all social theory is invention and idea, is it not?
But yeah, if I had to provide all of my personal information to post here, I would not. Thus, the conversation would be stifled.
Furthermore, social customs in most cultures have giving a name a voluntary act that is based on respect. Many times, you are not given the "familiar" name and are restricted to it based on propriety. An introduction is also voluntary as a sign of willing to respect and familiarize yourself with another, and not because anyone has the right to know who everyone else is.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 14th August 2008, 2:33pm)
Well, all social theory is invention and idea, is it not?
Not really. But I don't have a dog in that fight, so I'm not going to expound.
Other than to say everything can be taken as a theory, and disbelieved. Remember on Friends when Phoebe said that gravity was a force pushing upwards and she got Ross to agree? Kind of like that.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 14th August 2008, 2:33pm)
Furthermore, social customs in most cultures have giving a name a voluntary act that is based on respect. Many times, you are not given the "familiar" name and are restricted to it based on propriety. An introduction is also voluntary as a sign of willing to respect and familiarize yourself with another, and not because anyone has the right to know who everyone else is.
This is going on a tangent I don't want to ride, but to visit another country you need a passport, and even to stay in a hotel you need this, so you've a priori identified yourself to start with. Modalities for chatting with strangers are another issue.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 14th August 2008, 3:39pm)
Easily addressed - checks and credit cards are having you claim that you are an individual to address a cash system. This is a protective measure against fraud.
And court cases? Thats a legal matter. Far different than putting together an encyclopedia.
1. You asked if I showed ID. You never made that specification.
2. One would think, except...Seigenthaler. Somedays, I wonder what the outcome would be if he sued. It's good to see that Wikipedia attempted to prevent a future occurrence...but they came too close that one time. Traditional encyclopedias have a much stricter control over what goes in, Wikipedia's more lax. Wikipedia can change mistakes so it isn't permanent, but a print encyclopedia can't until the next edition. It's not a bad model...until no one actually reverts the mistakes, and even worse when they are left there for months. Tying a real name into an account means that if someone actually had inserted libel into a piece, that the defamed would be able to properly pursue a lawsuit.
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Thu 14th August 2008, 8:53pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 14th August 2008, 2:33pm)
Well, all social theory is invention and idea, is it not?
Not really. But I don't have a dog in that fight, so I'm not going to expound.
Other than to say everything can be taken as a theory, and disbelieved. Remember on Friends when Phoebe said that gravity was a force pushing upwards and she got Ross to agree? Kind of like that.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 14th August 2008, 2:33pm)
Furthermore, social customs in most cultures have giving a name a voluntary act that is based on respect. Many times, you are not given the "familiar" name and are restricted to it based on propriety. An introduction is also voluntary as a sign of willing to respect and familiarize yourself with another, and not because anyone has the right to know who everyone else is.
This is going on a tangent I don't want to ride, but to visit another country you need a passport, and even to stay in a hotel you need this, so you've a priori identified yourself to start with. Modalities for chatting with strangers are another issue.
But see, thats the thing. You identified yourself once. However, you didn't have to wear your name like a tag. You weren't known by it by everyone around you. That wasn't your "identity". Your "identity" is "foreigner" or "stranger" or "person I hide my children from because Im xenophobic".
-I- don't have a problem with registering my name to have access to a place. However, I do have a problem with people knowing it and then using it to search through my personal histories and get into places of my life that I don't feel comfortable with them there.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 14th August 2008, 12:39pm)
Do you reveal your name to everyone you meet on the street?
Yes, to anyone who asks. But, I won't reveal my real name to anyone on Wikipedia or WR.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.