Recently, an AN/I post threw out "privacy-gone-amuck enforcement" and criticized those who wanted to make sure personal names were not posted on Wikipedia. I do not know about everyone else, but I feel that it is rude and really not good for you to mention anyone's real name. Its okay if you mention your own, but I think that people need to respect each other and address each other by user names or alterations thereof.

Why? Its just simple respect. If I wanted my real name to be how I am addressed, I would have used it instead of an alias. The basic idea of "civil" is to treat people in respect. There would be no real reason to "out" anyone.

And yes, I use a legitimate email account, and sign my emails with my real name. But thats -my- choice to do it at -that- moment. I would be upset if people shared that information with those I didn't choose to, or identified me as anything but my user name on the encyclopedia.

Is this really so totalitarian?

A link would be nice, just for context.

It depends what people are doing with their privacy. You will not get much sympathy here for anonymous people running amok abusing others, while expecting to be treated according to what their supposed real life credentials (or egos) deserve. With Wikipedia, we can see privacy being used as a weapon of attack, where you defend your own, but find excuses to accidentally reveal other people's identities (which is allowed if you can play your "troll" card).

I don't want spill over from the thread, but: Link

And I don't believe anyone should reveal real names in discussions on Wikipedia. If only for the sake of continuity, i.e. not everyone knows the identity and cannot keep up.

I think it's the height of hubris for people who are writing articles about other, real, live people (who have not consented to such) to argue that their own identities are sacredly private. Seriously, this is the sort of thing that really should make your head explode if you say it more than three times in a week.

Kelly, that is absolutely absurd.

Seriously.

Not only does that lack sense or reason, your claims of hubris show a lack of respect to humans. Not only did you stereotype all editors as some kind of person who seeks to disrespect, you also ignore what the whole point of the internet is about.

I wouldn't be surprised if you support the whole camera spying in the UK right now. Who needs privacy! You have nothing to fear! You brought it on yourself!

You disgust me.


I wanted to add - as I discussed with others:

When you "out" a member, normally you do it to claim they have a Conflict of Interest. This gives you an excuse to ignore reliable sources and win "arguments". All that should matter is that the information is reliable and that its given the proper weight. Instead, personal information is abused to ignore these.

Insert your own joke here (thass wot she said!)

Jon

and what would that be aside from a means for computers to communicate with each other?

A means to communicate with each other without having to worry about being spied on all the time.

Tennessee or Kentucky (I don't remember which) tried making it illegal to post anonymously.

Once you start revealing identities, there is no more protection. As I pointed out above, identities are used now to claim a CoI in order to ignore reliable sources and weight issues. It can only get worse from there.

No, don't remember that being in the spec for the Internet.

==Edit==
Enough of the facetiousness. The point is that the Internet was not particularly designed with a philosophical purpose in mind other than the robust sharing of information between computers, yet there are people who claim it is a world of political and legal asylum where, rather like Wikipedia think, people are immune from the morals and laws that govern societies. Similarly USENETs attitude of "for fuck's sake, anything goes" is not any grand thinking philosophy, it is simply what people felt they could get away with, and for some reason there are people foolish enough to think that USENET was a Good Thing.

I detest retrofitting some libertarian philosophy onto a technical solution to a technical problem. The trouble is that people start believing this sort of crap and get rather confused when trying to build further arguments for the right way to use the Internet on top of it. GIGO.

So, when you got internet connection, you gave your name, address, and social security number? Finger prints? DNA?

Don't be ridiculous. You know exactly that there is internet privacy, just as there is normal privacy. The fact that people get so upset when the government gets phone call records shows that the masses believe in this. Hell, the fourth amendment is all about it.

But heres the rub - I doubt you really care.

I remember giving my name, address, and credit card when I called my ISP...

The Internet has never been about that. You need to stop listening to the raving lunatics who inhabit the Internet.

The Internet was created to allow researchers to more easily share information with one another, in the pursuit of science and technological advancement. Such interactions were generally conducted using real names, since the National Science Foundation typically requires real credentials before giving you grant money and/or access to the Internet (which they controlled in the early days).

The Internet as a haven for those who think they have some right to anonymously run about and muck with other people's lives is a johnny-come-lately idea, and was certainly never envisioned as a purpose for the Internet when it was constructed, nor is it widely accepted as a proper purpose for the Internet today.

Not don't care, don't have a clue what you are on about.

Though on the more serious note.

The internet was originally intended to share information quickly and efficiently. (Between researchers and academia mostly)

The culture of anonymity grew slowly as the commercialization and the dilution of the internet began. It really hit a watershed moment with Eternal September, which is about to hit it's 15th anniversary. It was not the point of what the internet was about, merely a side-effect of expansion.

Anonymity is the basis of society. I have the right to talk to my neighbors and the rest without people knowing about it. Its the basic right to privacy, and the government requires proof before they can violate that right.

Can we please, please, please set-up a Ding-Dong Skool or Romper Room Subforum so these Wiki-Pupæ can chirp-chirp-chirp their never-ending ever-the-same Wiki-Prattle to their own bluddy choir until they grow up!?

Please, I can't stand it any more …

The fact that Wikipedia Kiddie Kabal Kultur has washed their brains in moving e-lectron phantasies about journalism, research, and scholarship that only a babbling infant could believe should not be allowed to interfere with the serious work of this Review.

They are Killing Us with their Kiddie-Mess!

Jon

Ok, you can stop trolling now.

Kelly Martin has discovered the true purpose of the internet.

The only prize available is this ninja:

But there is not much else to say.

Any more like that?

Actually, the law restricts internet service providers, i.e. the true internet, the item that allows people across the world to access information, from providing personal identity.

So you are quite wrong, and willfully abuse origins in order to confound such a different thing than the system we are using now.



Thats funny, because your wanting to out others seems like the basis of whinny trolling because those individuals happened to get rid of you.

Wow, sell your soul for petty revenge.

You have!!

Congratulations, the second person on my block list. It took the other person about 1000 times more posts to achieve it.

I'm sorry, do you show your ID when you go to the store?
When walking down the street?
Tell everyone your name?

Do you carry your "papers" with you? This isn't 1930s Germany. This isn't Soviet Russia. We respect anonymity.

Sometimes it's hard to tell a troll from someone who has lived too long in his parent's basement.

What if the house is a bridge, Kelly?

Aww, how adorable. Not only are you unable to put up a decent argument, you have to resort to pot shots.

Seriously, you have only proven yourself related to a fascist mindset. You can attack me all you want, but you will never dig yourself out of that wretched hole.

As long as it's not a Bridge to Total Freedom.

And if that doesn't completely derail this thread, I don't know what will.

Ottava,

You are addressing a huge philosophical issue here that you weren't aware of. Most people here think that using real names and not hiding your identity is going to solve a lot of problems. I disagree, heartily. I'm fine with the "other point of view" prevailing here. But I don't have a big "real name issue" at the moment. It seems that you do - and unfortunately, you picked the one place where you will find lots of sympathy for abuse on WP, but "the opposite of sympathy" for complaints about real names being released.

At times, I've found the strong "opposing views" about real identity/names found here to be kind of harsh. Which they sort of are. That's what you've come up against.

Why are people here so tough about that? Because many people here think that hiding behind an alias is cheating, or that it allows the other person to "get away with things" like writing about real people while hiding behind a mask.

There's a lot said on this site about how a perfect world would involve use of all real names. I couldn't disagree more. I respect their different opinion (from my own); but I point to that many of the most abusive people on (for example) Wikipedia use their real names. I think the abusiveness had different roots. I think the "way of solving it" is otherwise than revealing everyone's names.

Sorry you hit the wall here. But this is the culture.

And the people that agree with them are exactly the ones they don't like.

The people that agree with them are the ones who use the identities to declare conflicts of interests and push them off the encyclopedia.

That only proves that the people who still hold those opinions here don't have a clue.

I actually subscribe to this theory based off of personal experience.

If you ever went to a pee wee football or baseball game, you will see that people will act far worse in front of people that probably know them.

So far I've yet to have anyone at a game (and they occur at a park within walking distance of my home), tell me that they're fucking my mother's dead corpse. (She's still quite alive, though)

I think donors to WMF ought not to be allowed to give their real names, address or credit card numbers. If they want to give to WMF they need to just put cash in the trash receptacle pictured outside the WMF mauve world headquarters in the suppressed photo.

That is probably pseudo-anonymity of crowds.

That said, I am not sure revealing ones much vaunted true name over the internet to people a thousand miles away will help at all. Even if you know I am John Smith, I am still effectively anonymous, and will probably make jokes to you that offend me.

Well, yes and no. If I were in this argument, and pissed off (as you are) I can see making this declaration. But the people who believe this have a different life experience, (and probably) job function (where the private and professional are sufficiently blended so as that they are fine with discussing private views in their real names, for one example), most of them are male (females tend to be more protective of their names, because there's the old online predator thing that appears to be more of an adverse thing for women than men ---- unless you are DS, ).

Calling people 'clueless' (paraphrased) doesn't do much in the way of persuading them that you are right. I'm sure you know that, but we all need to be reminded. Having said that, I've found that even logical arguments do nada, so I'd just let it go. WR is a tech-heavy culture, much like Wikipedia. And this POV is normal in tech-heavy cultures.

If I were you, I'd just take this "one particular topic" somewhere else. It's a topic here that most people here feel "that way" about, and there's no changing it. As I said, I disagree. But I also don't feel that emotional about it at the moment. If I did, this is the 100% worst place to rave about it. You might as well go to Wikipedia and argue for........ I don't know what. (Jimbo's repudiation? Slimvirgin excommunicated? --- some argument pretty much impossible to win)

Please observe the heading at the top of the page.

This is NOT the Usenet Review.

This is NOT the Internet Review.

This is NOT the Twinkie Chat Room Review.

This is NOT the Pee Wee Football Game Review.

Please do not come back until you learn how to read.

Jon

THAT'S RIGHT!

Take your damned analogies and put them where the sun doesn't shine!

We're the asshole review?



Wait, I guess so.

You can look it up on youtube if you don't believe me. There are fights and brawls at these games all the time.

You can hear people cussing and giving the finger while driving down the road and their license plates are quite visible.

How about protesters that throw rocks and riots?

You skew reality to emphasis your point.



They have donors?





Ah, but as you already said, they are set in their way so there is no reason to bother convincing them.

Now, Wikipedia is about reliable sources, "everyone can edit", and the such. It sure seems like having privacy would ensure that people focus on the reliable sources and allow people the right to start over. Being "outed" does not.

As they say: "It take one to know one"



(waves at JzG)

Not really. I understand that people do stupid things and get in fights at games (I do follow the news). They are in the minority though, exaggerated due to the sensationalistic media.

The same goes with protests. Some might be angry, but most protests don't go that way. Larger protests (and the more newsworthy ones) will have a greater chance for a flashpoint...but that's following the laws of probability. l I will say that I have in fact heard worse invective from some protests...but that's because I'm counting the Westboro Baptist Church.

However, from my experience, unless I get a game with users that I know, there is at least one fuckwit in a game.

I think the best example of how real names solving nothing is Wikipedia. Is has the real name knowlege of Slimvirgin, JzG, Durova, DShankbone (I could go on....) made them any less abusive? NO.

Do all persons using aliases abuse people? NO.

Where it is annoying is that the victim's name is known, and the attackers is hidden. But if you knew it, then what? Because we all have sued the abusive people on Wikipedia, right? (NO).

So what then?

The idea of real names solving anything is a myth.

Well as I consider your view DL, there is another point to it that I wonder if you considered.

Requiring real names would potentially turn off people who are hyper-sensitive to that info being leaked. Given how hard SV tries to stuff the genie back in the bottle regarding her real life ID, I wonder if she would have even registered for Wikipedia if she was required to give her real name upfront.

Then again, given internet's fascination with anonymity (sorry Jonny), requiring real identification at the beginning of Wikipedia probably would have killed the project at the root.


EDIT:

Another thing that just hit me, I'd wonder if it would have any sort of effects like Facebook/Myspace et al, now that companies and other organizations do background checks with people's real names on the internet.

Ottava, this comes up about every six months. You may want to brush up on your legal scholarship. Here are two relevant posts. To quote myself shamelessly, here's what one of them says:

Put another way. On editing Wikipedia, you have entered the public domain voluntarily and are essentially availing yourself of the privilege to publish your work, albeit in a collaboration. If your anonymity is more important than your urge to speak on a public platform, then there is a simple answer - don't take to the platform.

To repeat ad nauseam, Wikipediots demand the right to speak publicly about other people, or influence other people, usually under the guise of some "facts" being out there, and do not see that other people might rightly take the view that if someone is going to tell the world about them, or is attempting to tell them The Way Things Are, then they would like to know who these people are.

There is no human right to be heard on the Internet, and even less a right to be able to do that anonymously, whatever your purposes. You may chose to attempt anonymity but it is as much of "what the Internet is about" for people to hack at your anonymity and expose it. There is nothing inherent in the process of developing an encyclopedia which demands secrecy, indeed most reliable publications (especially those favoured by Wikipedia itself) depend on the credentials of the named people and organisations that create them.

And yes, it is arguably hypocritical of me to do the same here, but I edited Wikipedia under my own name and only chose anonymity here in response to the poisonous outpourings of the BADSITEs crowd (would you want the David Shankbone treatment?). Everywhere else on the Internet I have used my own name.

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.

[quote name='gomi' date='Thu 14th August 2008, 7:28pm' post='121634']


So don't think you have a right to anonymity. It's much like your right to a "pursuit of happiness" -- you have a right to pursue anonymity in your speech, but you will succeed only if you are more clever than your pursuers or if your speech doesn't incite anyone to try to figure out who you are. You have a right to pursue happiness, not a right to catch it.[/quote]
[/quote]

You forgot to include privacy laws that prohibit people from identifying those under the age of 18 and privacy laws that prohibit companies that you are doing business with to produce your personal information.



To put it another way, whenever you leave your property, you entered into the public voluntarily and are essentially availing yourself of any privacy. Always carry your ID. Make sure to have a birth certificate, social security card, and have your DNA and Finger prints on record.

Why? Because you have no privacy.

Oh wait, thats NOT how reality is. Thats only how reality in a fascist state is.

What really set me off on this thread, and on Ottava, is the bald-faced assertion that "society is based on anonymity". This thesis is so ludicrous that I find it hard to believe that someone who has studied human interaction at even the most rudimentary of levels would assert it honestly.

Society is about interrelationships between people. With complete anonymity, those relationships have no persistence, and there can be no society. This is so blindingly obvious that when I read Ottava's declaration, I assumed Ottava was trolling. Perhaps I merely misunderstood what he mean by "anonymity is the foundation of society". Perhaps what he really means is "I prefer to exercise tight control over my interactions with others so that I can contain the reputation effects of such interactions". Given his penchance for saying profoundly stupid things like "anonymity is the foundation of society", I can see why he might prefers that.

I take your claims of sensationalistic media and return it to say that your claims are equally as rare or moot.

And yes, I hear people cuss all the time at sports events. However, I don't know many people that kill each other or attempt to through the internet. That tends to be face to face.



Okay Kelly, prove who you are.

I need DNA, Finger prints, and a birth certificate. You claim to reveal yourself. Now you have to prove it. Otherwise, you could be lying about who you really are.

You can start by putting up a social security number, but we all know those can be faked, so you'll have to do a lot more.

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.

I can understand that reaction, as I don't think anonymity is the foundation for human interaction. . It is sort-of the foundation for net-presence, or at least it rests as an option to be discarded or not.

But again, I totally agree with: "I prefer to exercise tight control over my interactions with others so that I can contain the reputation effects of such interactions". Which in this day and age of surveillance and the judgementality and interventionism of the persons doing that work - is pretty much impossible. But still.

Ottava: Here is another post you might want to look at. Pay special attention to the link to the McIntyre opinion. That whole thread isn't bad. We have tried to give anon authorship some serious thought here. It is not all one thing or another. There is an important distinction for instance between anon dissent and the anon exercise of authority. The former is noble the later is abusive and cowardly. WP admins exercise authority over editorial matters on WP.

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.