I saw this on BBC News today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6059726.stm
Made me think. I suspect I'm not the only one on this list to have encountered some pretty disturbed and angry people on Wikipedia. I know you all know this already, but a reminder: it's a good idea to ensure your physical address (at the very least) is not public if you plan to tangle with nutcases online.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 10/17/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I saw this on BBC News today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6059726.stm
Made me think. I suspect I'm not the only one on this list to have encountered some pretty disturbed and angry people on Wikipedia. I know you all know this already, but a reminder: it's a good idea to ensure your physical address (at the very least) is not public if you plan to tangle with nutcases online.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
People have been afraid of this stuff since online discussions started in the 1970s. It's easy to become paranoid about it, but that extreme stuff doesn't happen very often. Among other things, the people who get very aggressive online are usually not physically aggressive in person. I've only known one exception in 20+ years.
If there is any way for anyone to figure out who you are from your online presence, then your address and phone number are out there in so many public databases that "hiding" is rather pointless. Either keep your pseudonym completely divorced from all identifying information, or accept that this is another minor risk in life and move on.
Almost everyone I know has had their addresses online, associated with vanity domain names, for 10-15 years (in some cases, longer). So far, nobody has had anything more than occational snail mail spam.
As I have said elsewhere, though it's currently Wikifashionable to stay pseudonymous, in the long term I expect that people will accept this and get over it, and start using real names more consistently.
On 10/17/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
As I have said elsewhere, though it's currently Wikifashionable to stay pseudonymous, in the long term I expect that people will accept this and get over it, and start using real names more consistently.
That would have the downside of lengthening the copyright terms on the stuff we produce.
On 10/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
As I have said elsewhere, though it's currently Wikifashionable to stay pseudonymous, in the long term I expect that people will accept this and get over it, and start using real names more consistently.
That would have the downside of lengthening the copyright terms on the stuff we produce.
How is that a downside (in practical terms, anyways)? Anybody who wishes to PD their contributions can already do so, and Wikipedia aims to be free-content, not necessarily public domain.
On 10/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
That would have the downside of lengthening the copyright terms on the stuff we produce.
How is that a downside (in practical terms, anyways)? Anybody who wishes to PD their contributions can already do so, and Wikipedia aims to be free-content, not necessarily public domain.
For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred to cc-by. The viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to -- means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free licence. This means that the content is more free and therefore furthers our mission.
On 10/17/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
That would have the downside of lengthening the copyright terms on the stuff we produce.
How is that a downside (in practical terms, anyways)? Anybody who wishes to PD their contributions can already do so, and Wikipedia aims to be free-content, not necessarily public domain.
For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred to cc-by. The viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to -- means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free licence. This means that the content is more free and therefore furthers our mission.
And...? ;-)
No, really, I don't see how the length of the copyright terms is an issue if everything is being licensed under the GFDL anyways (except in the sense that longer copyright terms mean more time until somebody can start getting usable Wikipedia dumps with no GFDL strings attached, which presumably isn't something too desireable in any case).
On 10/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred to cc-by. The viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to -- means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free licence. This means that the content is more free and therefore furthers our mission.
And...? ;-)
I actually deleted my next sentence from my post for fear of being flamed: "I personally disagree with this and think that the fewer restrictions placed on work beyond simple attribution the better."
(I license my work cc-by.)
--- Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred to cc-by. The viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to -- means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free licence. This means that the content is more free and therefore furthers our mission.
And...? ;-)
I actually deleted my next sentence from my post for fear of being flamed: "I personally disagree with this and think that the fewer restrictions placed on work beyond simple attribution the better."
(I license my work cc-by.)
I agree. Copyleft can be useful, but the biggest problem with it is that it tends to prevent you combining with other copyleft work. To quote Lawrence Lessig: "all of these licenses were written without regard to the fundamental value of every significant advance in the digital age interoperability."
-- Matt
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Matt R stated for the record:
I saw this on BBC News today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6059726.stm
Made me think. I suspect I'm not the only one on this list to have encountered some pretty disturbed and angry people on Wikipedia. I know you all know this already, but a reminder: it's a good idea to ensure your physical address (at the very least) is not public if you plan to tangle with nutcases online.
-- Matt
To quote from the article:
Det Cons Christopher Creagh, of the Metropolitan Police, said: "This is the first instance of a web-rage attack."
/me generally doesn't panic at the first instance.
- -- Sean Barrett | Therapy is expensive. Popping sean@epoptic.com | bubble wrap is cheap. You choose.
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
To quote from the article:
Det Cons Christopher Creagh, of the Metropolitan Police, said: "This is the first instance of a web-rage attack."
/me generally doesn't panic at the first instance.
Yup, that's entirely reasonable. Risk should be evaluated rationally, but it's worth remembering to evaluate it.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:07:03 +0200, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Matt R stated for the record:
I saw this on BBC News today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6059726.stm
Made me think. I suspect I'm not the only one on this list to have encountered some pretty disturbed and angry people on Wikipedia. I know you all know this already, but a reminder: it's a good idea to ensure your physical address (at the very least) is not public if you plan to tangle with nutcases online.
-- Matt
To quote from the article:
Det Cons Christopher Creagh, of the Metropolitan Police, said: "This is the first instance of a web-rage attack."
/me generally doesn't panic at the first instance.
Well there have been a couple Counter Strike / MMORPG (Everquest I think) related murders i Korea already though. However in those cases the guys where already in the same room while playing or knew each other in real life, so it's not quite the same as some nutjob tracking down a complete stranger after a nasty flamewar.