On 30 March 2015 at 16:00, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I propose we run a study. We will survey random editors and ask them if they realize that there is a chance they are leaking enough information for their identity to be revealed. *Even if they are logged in.*
What exactly do you hope to learn?
Regarding comparisons - institutions have structure, and if there is a structure mapping, then it's a matter of fact. A given mapping will have strengths and weaknesses. You may prefer one mapping to another. If you have reasons for preferring one mapping (other than that it offends you), I'm all ears. But be aware: simply changing the vocabulary that you use to describe the space doesn't mean that two different descriptions of institutions aren't in fact describing a construct that is more similar than different, or that is similar in important ways.
This is all to say, there are often reasons that institutions like the NSA and WMF are structured the way they are. Given the investment in the topic, it's probably worth exploring how the institutional structures emerged. But given the investment, confirmation bias may prevail in this case: even if there are important similarities, nobody wants to look like a hypocrite.
What does this have to do with anything?