On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Sylvia Ventura <sylvia.ventura@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid points, specially around privacy standards across countries/continents with a very different political and cultural makeup. And not something likely to change unless supremacy over wikipedia is given to one specific entity or state (nah). And losing our Freedom of Speech is not up for question.  

A coupe of thoughts on the comment <<that internet itself promotes anonymity>> that might have been the case in the early days, but as more of our 'real lives' activity migrates online and replaces the physical world; internet has become the 'repository' of knowledge, but also goods and services, it's increasingly the place where 'untangle assets' get traded and human interactions take place (social/professional/commercial/financial/legal…). As we create our online trail, so is our personal profile. It's just a matter of time before we access everything about anyone with a simple email address (Google already pulls chunks of info from linkedin twitter, quora, etc to feed your G+ ID … and so does rapportive on email) It's already possible to spot the fake (ID) from the real.  

More and more you see these "vetting" mechanisms use cross pollination of personal data  (i.e. signing up to Airbnb to book room with your Facebook account or google account). As far as anonymity is concerned I think we're beyond the 'point of no return'.  This if from a North American perspective of course, but Europe will soon join us with different levels of implementation (the trade off is always Access vs Privacy and that's a though sell), and so will the rest of the planet. This sounds a bit Orwellian and a bit depressing I agree, and that's why it is SO VERY important to get Wikipedia and sister projects to thrive and grow and be a strong space, repository of human knowledge, human history, representing all voices. 

Europe is increasingly unlikely to join North America. This is a continent whose most recent actions in relation to privacy law strengthened it /past/ the data protection standard, not reduced that standard. I'm confused as to how the solution to a future that is "a bit Orwellian and a bit depressing" is to embrace it, but make sure that everyone is equally surveiled.

Sylvia
-----------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 02:23:53 +0530
From: Theo10011 <de10011@gmail.com>
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
        <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
Message-ID:
        <CAP9+R94miYuwUUQe_6cFk-UCN6XZ73cfuzANqZVZwMTD8zGy3g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"


Hi Sylvia

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.

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap