I'm new to this mailing list, so I may not be doing this right. Please let me know if I'm not. I wish to make a response to Carol's remarks on anonymity.
I don't propose to doxx Corbett here, but I don't think there was ever any problem about his identity even when he was editing under the monniker Malleus Fatuorum ("hammer of men" - but originally it it was Malleus Fatuarum, "hammer of women"). His first few edits are classical in nature and then there is a hiatus of several months after which he resumes again and commences his familiar program of edits centered around his local history and things Northern in the UK. Should one have wished to identify him then, it really shouldn't have been difficult even in those early days. And of course he subsequently made, earlier this year, a remark about a dreadful family tragedy which certainly does serve to identify him should anyone wish to research it.
My experience of life is that sexist men are generally unaware of their trait, would indignantly deny it if put to them, and thus don't necessarily feel the need to remain anonymous.
What I find interesting about Corbett is his lack of notability when you go searching for him. Other than a couple of Amazon reviews (which appear to be his based on the subjects reviewed) I can't find a single blog, article or any other resource authored by him with a single exception pertaining to a charitable fund his family and associates appear to have set up (for the welfare of ferrets). Otherwise the world outside Wikipedia is silent on him, and he in that wider world.
I confess myself quite curious about Corbett and his Manchester circle, and not merely within the context of Wikipedia's gender gap but within the broader context of exercising power, and for that reason I am making a preliminary study of his editing history with a view to discovering how he came to achieve his position of dominance in Wikipedia. If I have anything significant to say about that, I shall upload it to my website and let the list know. I don't expect that will be before next Spring,
Marinka van Dam (a pseudonym)
On November 30, 2014 at 2:37 PM Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
On 11/30/2014 11:51 AM, Kathleen McCook wrote:
I used to think that too. But some people don't care about people knowing who they are, what they think or who the mess with. I don't care that much about anonymity and have said a few problematic things (usually under intense harassment). Assuming he really is "Eric Corbett", he's said a lot. Sitush has outed who he really is at least three times and redacted only one, so that's widely known. Same is true for a lot of individuals, some of whom flame away just within the boundaries of NPA.The only solution would be lack of anonymity. That won't fly, but it would cause the creepiness to go away.
The problem is there are all sorts of harassers out there, some of them paid by govts, who will harass or come after individuals who disagree with them or who criticize their favorite program, politician, party or country.
Better would be a sliding scale of privileges depending on whether you are an IP or registered and confirmed and whether you are at least willing to admit who you are to the Foundation, including confirming via phone or skype. The latter would be mandatory to become an Admin or an Arbitrator or to retain editing privileges after violating important policies repeatedly.
This would work REALLY good to stop BLP violations which have been the biggest time sink for me, at least until GGTF. Once the Foundation knows who you are, it's really easy for pissed off subjects of trashy BLPs to get a subpoena and sue your butt.
I have a list of good ideas in formulation, some drawn from previous discussions, and one of these days soon will post here, at my carolmoore.net/wikipedia, at the new youtube site and who knows where else. (Opinion page of NY TImes? ha ha ha)
CM
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap