On 25/09/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 24 Sep 2007 at 20:45:31 -0400, "Armed Blowfish" diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Perhaps all users should be prohibited from contributing under or revealing their real names on WP, to prevent this sort of thing from happening. Those who have already done so could have their usernames changed and their names removed from WP.
That would be a step in the entirely wrong direction. Wikipedia makes too much of a fetish out of preserving "anonymity" as it is, at the expense of accountability. While I wouldn't want to go as far as Citizendium in requiring real name use all the time, the opposite approach you're advocating, of using all fake names, is even worse.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Firstly, you do not know what anonymity is. Anonymity is different from pseudonymity. Anonymity means you do not even use a fake name - your contributions each stand separately, indistinguishable from other anonymous contributions, and you do not build a reputation. Pseudonymity means you do use a fake name, a pen name or whatever. This means your pseudonymous contributions are distinguishable from contributions made under other pseudonyms, and you do build a reputation under that pseudonym.
IP addresses can be pseudonyms too, albeit ones that do not map 1:1 to human beings (but then, hey, neither do pseudonyms, or even real names). IP addresses are not securely pseudonymous, and can generally be traced back to human beings.
In order to support anonymity, Wikipaedia would need to allow editing without logging in via anonymising networks such as Tor. Wikipaedia does not do this. Not even allowing logged in edits via such anonymising networks, Wikipaedia does not support secure pseudonymity either.
The security and accountability differences between anonymity an pseudonymity are significant. When anonymous, even if your identity is discovered for one of your anonymous contributions, it cannot be discovered what other anonymous contributions you have made. This could be of great importance for Chinese dissidents. If, however, you are pseudonymous, if the real-life identity of the pseudonym is discovered, all contributions made by that pseudonym can then be linked to that real-life identity, which could be bad news if one is, for example, a Chinese dissident.
Note that there are different kinds of accountability - accountability in the online arena and accountability in the real world. Examples of online accountability include killfiles, yelling, blocking, banning, emotional harm, emotional harassment, defamation, etc. Examples of offline accountability include suing, stalking, physical harm, more extreme emotional harm, defamation resulting in difficulty getting jobs, etc. Those who are anonymous are not accountable in all but the mildest of ways. Those who are securely pseudonymous are accountable only in online ways, so long as they remain pseudonymous. Those whose offline identities are known are accountable in all ways that they can be.
Probably the only form of offline accountability that is ever desirable is the ability to be sued. Firstly, if you want to sue someone, I suggest you start by privately telling him or her why, how much you want, what interest rate, and, if the person is pseudonymous, whether you will accept pseudonymous payment. Court isn't good for anyone - everyone loses except for the lawyers. In any case, how many of us do you think are accountable in the sense that if sued for any significant amount of money, we would not be forced to declare bankruptcy? Note that in the UK, Wikipaedia itself can be held accountable for failure to remove defamatory information. See Defamation Act 1996 and Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm http://www.cyber-rights.org/documents/godfrey_decision.htm
As for other forms of offline accountability - privacy can literally save lives, jobs, and physical well-being.
Online accountability itself can go too far - even a pseudonymous entity does not deserve to be defamed. Okay, so a pseudonymous entity cannot sue and remain pseudonymous, but it is better to defame a pseudonym simply because the opportunity for retaliation is less? That is the logic of a coward.
Now, what advantage is there in an unverified 'real name'? It could be a pseudonym which merely looks like a real name, which does have a long and distinguished history. Baroness Karen von Blixen-Fineck, for example, published under the pseudonym Isak Dinesen. Male pseudonyms have most likely been used by a number of women throughout history to evade sexism. Men have also used pseudonyms, e.g. Samuel Clemens / Mark Twain. But in any case, why encourage unverified real names, which may be pseudonyms, rather than pseudonyms which are obviously pseudonyms. Certainly, there may be more security in a pseudonym which looks like a real name, as people may not bother to try to out you if they think you are already outed. On the other hand, it could be a way to defame someone who really does posses that name, as was pointed out earlier.