Daniel R. Tobias wrot. e:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:58:08 +1000, Steve Bennett
wrote:
Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia
contributors? I had sort of
assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy, not as any real
right.
You were apparently absent during the BADSITES Wars of a couple of
years ago, where one of the principle arguments for draconian stands
against linking to so-called "attack sites", and for McCarthyite
witchhunts against anybody seen as in any way connected with them,
was that those sites were engaged in "outing" Wikipedians.
As a consequence of various sustained dirty tricks campaigns, no doubt
all intelligent people editing Wikipedia pseudonymously, and for whom
revelation of their real-life identity would be a disaster, simply
stopped doing that. If we note that Steve is asking "is it important to
many?", and the whole BADSITES business was not about "many" in any
sense, we can conclude that your need to namecheck it rather outstrips
your sense of proportion. It is true enough that some "attack sites"
people aimed to make enWP in particular less governable, and they failed
in that, though not without creating some fairly grim onsite situations
which echo on. But I think Steve is approaching this from the wrong end,
anyway. In Internet terms, it is not the uses of personal information
that you know about that create the real issues, it is the uses you
don't anticipate.
Charles