Rather than discuss the merits of this particular "outing," I think it would be more productive to discuss ways of encouraging people to edit under their own names rather than anonymously.
I realize that some people have legitimate reasons for preferring to remain anonymous. Maybe they live under a repressive government. Maybe they do some of their editing at work and don't want to get in trouble with their boss. I don't have any quarrel with *allowing* people to be anonymous. Most people, however, might as well edit under their own name, and if Wikipedia could find a way encourage this, it would cut down on some of the trolling and flame wars. (People are more likely to be on their best behavior when their own name and reputation is attached to what they do.)
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------
On 29/07/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Rather than discuss the merits of this particular "outing," I think it would be more productive to discuss ways of encouraging people to edit under their own names rather than anonymously.
I started editing under my name rather than a net nickname because it felt like I was working on a serious project. I notice a few editors have switched from using nicknames to using their real names. That is, there's a force we could harness towards this.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 29/07/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Rather than discuss the merits of this particular "outing," I think it would be more productive to discuss ways of encouraging people to edit under their own names rather than anonymously.
I started editing under my name rather than a net nickname because it felt like I was working on a serious project. I notice a few editors have switched from using nicknames to using their real names. That is, there's a force we could harness towards this.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I've considered it at various points. I've already quite deliberately stuck my picture on my userpage and used my real name on this list; and so now that Brandt has me on Hivemind, I couldn't care less. He's "outing" information that's already long-since "out".
I don't think there's an inherent lack of seriousness to contributing with a nickname, though. A lot of people I've worked with have had nicknames (either ones developed at the job or ones they just used in general), and it never made them worse or less serious workers. But the attack-site thing in general does strike me as a bit silly. Google's pretty unforgiving, whatever we do. I don't know or care who SlimVirgin is, but someone determined enough might have found out. Or this may be a total load from a paranoid lunatic. By totally ignoring it, or by as many of us as can do it safely just using our real names, we reduce, not increase, the power it has over anyone. By making a huge deal over it, we do exactly what the trolls were hoping-create drama and alienate people.
On 7/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/07/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Rather than discuss the merits of this particular "outing," I think it would be more productive to discuss ways of encouraging people to edit under their own names rather than anonymously.
I started editing under my name rather than a net nickname because it felt like I was working on a serious project. I notice a few editors have switched from using nicknames to using their real names. That is, there's a force we could harness towards this.
I used to have my real name up on my userpage, but after the second failed attempt to out me, I decided it wasn't worth the risk of collateral damage. There are a lot of "Mark Wagner"s out there, and almost none of them are me. That's a lot of potential for false identification and harassment of random people.
On 7/29/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Rather than discuss the merits of this particular "outing," I think it would be more productive to discuss ways of encouraging people to edit under their own names rather than anonymously.
Actually I think adding the ability to edit anonymously would be great. But Wikipedia doesn't really provide that. You can edit pseudonymously, or you can edit under your IP address. And all (the vast majority of) the anonymous proxies are blocked.
I realize that some people have legitimate reasons for preferring to remain anonymous. Maybe they live under a repressive government. Maybe they do some of their editing at work and don't want to get in trouble with their boss. I don't have any quarrel with *allowing* people to be anonymous. Most people, however, might as well edit under their own name, and if Wikipedia could find a way encourage this, it would cut down on some of the trolling and flame wars.
I think you underestimate the reasons for not posting under your real name to a site which indefinitely retains your every contribution, timestamped, (and released under a free content license to boot). Most people don't want their boss, their parents, their friends, their children, their girlfriends, knowing the kinds of details which this information might reveal.
Of course, I created an account using my real name in part because I know it'd be relatively easy for anyone with ill intentions to figure out who I am anyway, if I were editing under a pseudonym. So at least if I edit under my real name I can try to remind myself that I'm not anonymous. Brandt has gone a long way toward showing this exact fact. You can't hide behind a pseudonym without taking precious care to not edit any of the topics you're actually interested in. And you can't hide behind an IP address for even more obvious reasons, unless maybe you use AOL or something.
And don't forget. Right now all this snooping is difficult, but as time goes on and technology gets better it'll get easier and easier.
Anthony
On 7/29/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
I realize that some people have legitimate reasons for preferring to remain anonymous.
Here's a damn good reason.