It seems the crux of your argument is against the nature of the Internet itself, rather than anything specific to Wikipedia. There is nothing unique about anonymity on Wikipedia. In fact, it could be argued that internet itself promotes anonymity - Internet protocol don't require any real user identification for access, beyond giving a rough idea of someone's access point, the only information that is there is what a user willingly chooses to divulge. As the adage goes - On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.[1] And in this day and age, a dog can indeed have a FB profile, a twitter account, gmail, a youtube channel, a tumblr and even a Wikipedia account (TOS doesn't have anything against dogs....I think). I don't see what is unique on Wikipedia that promotes pseudonymous or anonymous users anymore than other places - it would always come down to what someone chooses to reveal and their own level of personal boundaries.

Then there is the entire idea about the wisdom of the crowd, which implies that the individual is irrelevant to a certain extent, nameless at best. It is the collective that gives the crowd its identity and strength - to that purpose it is easier to join the crowd, as it is easy to leave.

There is something also worth mentioning here about American/European elitism, where coming from places in Middle-east, South-America, and parts of Asia, associating your political opinion with your real-world identity can have very real and dire repercussions. In India, for example, two women were arrested for expressing their opinion on FB at the demise of a political figure, I believe one of them posted a comment and the other "liked" it on Facebook.[2] They were both arrested in the middle of the night by police from a completely different area. And that is probably one of the tamest example I could think of, when you consider what the political situation is in the parts of the middle-east. I'm sure I can pull up horrifying stories about bloggers in Egypt or Iran or elsewhere, who don't truly share the luxury of free speech.

Then the second implication, I don't think anonymity alone permits someone to cross any lines. It would be a facile argument to disprove, that once anonymity is removed from the equation that you can expect someone to be more civil. You still don't know anything about the person on the other end, neither would they about you, besides what you choose to reveal - you would remain two perfect strangers. Now, implying that associating their name with that a single comment to you, would be singled out and have real-world implications, be it work or family - would be another stretch.

All this seems like a case of "telling on someone" as children, usually their parents and expecting intervention. Online platforms already have system that resembles this, whether its an admin, or flagging something or contacting support. Then, most work-places I have known can't censor someone's personal or political opinion or what they do or say in their own personal time, impeaching them would be against their civil rights - even if it is politically incorrect - it would have to be of their own volition to change. As Voltaire put it - "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." (or perhaps it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall.)

If such a totalitarian system were ever to be conceived that won't permit anonymity, I suppose it would get complicated with different nationalities, especially EU, where handling and sharing someone's personal information requires far more restrictions, not to mention the oppressive regimes would have their own "requirements". I suppose someone would have to weigh what they gain vs what they lose. Sadly, they might lose Freedom of speech and Privacy, for the chance that someone would be nicer on the internet.

On Fri, May 10, 2013, Sylvia Ventura <sylvia.ventura@gmail.com> wrote:

Accidental troll policy

My ID was recently deleted on Meta-Wiki, the reason given was: wait for it… Vandalism. Little than I knew I had breached protocol – as a newbie I had created a page on Meta and had clearly broken the rules. Or was it, since then, I learned that your individual history (been banned/suspended, etc…) determines your capacity of progressing in the ranks of WP – so this might have been purely accidental or not.

I don't quite follow that your ID was deleted for vandalism? I would like to offer my help as an admin. Please let me know your username, and I will see if it can be rectified.

But back to my point, after being notified of my ban, as a good citizen and a steward of open-culture I felt it was my duty to get educated. I checked the Wikipedia’s user policy. What I found was lengthy, detailed but overall clear. Except for a portion that was particularly unsettling. The one about “Use of Real Name and Harassment”. [[excerpt: use of real name may make a contributor more vulnerable to issues such as harassment, both on and off Wikipedia]]

After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator Hersfold in yesterday’s Signpost I can’t let go of the idea that the policy might actually enable the very problem it is trying to avoid <harassment> by perpetuating the culture of obscurity and by allowing trolls to hide behind anonymity.

In an era where information is a commodity, where online traceability is child’s play for anyone with rudimentary tech skills I can’t imagine that concealing one’s real-life identity on Wikipedia will minimize the incidence of harassment. The reasons for Hersfold resignation again shed a gloomy light on this. Granted, arbitration is a “hot seat” to hold but unless we are willing to put in place a “witness protection program” style for wikipedians involved in conflict resolution, it will be impossible to prevent this from happening again.

I agree that concealing someone's real identity won't really affect incidence of harassment. At the same time, if traceability is getting better, so are the means to counter it- there are tons of tools online for people that value it - OTR, VPN, TOR etc. and there business has only been booming.

So the question I’m thorn with is who’s really benefiting from the “Privacy - no Real name Policy”? The folks trying to do their job sensibly and seeking some distance between their work on Wikipedia and their personal lives/families/jobs or the trolls that haven’t yet found that clear boundary and are, by design, allowed to create a toxic and unwelcoming environment.

Looking at it from the other end. What if the system promoted total transparency? Where everyone in it is really who they say they are. A system where real-life ID is tied to the online work, no place to hide, where the very act of signing up and becoming a wikipedian is a pledge for civility, respect and trust. Where personal status is a currency based on both hard and soft skills, (number/quality of contributions and the manner in which we interact with each other). Maybe you get to play anonymously for a while but if you want to get serious and become a ‘ranked’ wikipedian tell us who you are.

I honestly don’t know how much implementation of a formal vetting system would violate the foundation’s DNA – and it might - but knowing what mechanisms/policies facilitate harassment will help us find solutions to prevent it from perpetuating. In this case ‘anonymity’ could be a weak link.

How about associating a Wikipedia ID to a mobile phone number at sign up, send the access code and instructions to new users before they get started – à la craigslist. If this is not acceptable let’s find another way to tie in real-life ID with Wikipedia’s ID and keep the community healthy, truly open and safe. Who do we risk losing by getting to know who we are? The trolls – yes. because there will be no place to hide and play big bad wolf. Who do we attract? Potentially everyone that has once considered contributing to Wikipedia but found it to be unsafe and off-putting.

Some might argue: “look, this is not a social club, this is how we’ve always done it, grow a skin or move along”. I’d say: totally agree, institutional knowledge is important, let’s keep the good - and there is plenty - and shed the bad. Wikipedia has evolved greatly in the past 10 years and so has the world, and general expectations for social interactions have changed. We are steadily losing some and still missing many voices on Wikipedia. Clearly harassment is not the chief cause, but since *people* are the most important part (asset) of Wikipedia, we need to start developing a much-needed social protocol and insure the free flow of knowledge over ethos.

(^Pseudonym, lest anyone believe my last name is 10011 :) )