The main good reason to edit anonynously is because
Wikipedia is an open wiki and is incapable of
preventing harrasment or any less seious sort of
contact.
That seems to me more like a reason not to edit at all.
I don't see why.
Well, mainly because the popular Wikipedias don't have any remotely reasonable mechanism to allow anonymous edits. Tor is banned from en.Wikipedia, so in order to edit anonymously you have to create a new account for each edit, and where's the fun in that? Maybe Tor is allowed on the Wikipedia you edit? I realize this is foundation-l, so I'm trying not to assume too much about which project you're referring to.
I guess I should clarify that I don't think the fact that Wikipedia cannot prevent harassment is enough of a reason to not edit at all *for everyone*; only for those who find themselves unable to edit without hiding themselves from the other editors. And I'm not really sure if you fall into that or not. You say you "have no problem owning up to my pseudononymous edits", so 1) it sounds like you are willing to reveal your identity to other editors; and 2) you're not editing *anonymously* in any case, you're editing *pseudonymously*.
This goes back to one of my earlier statements, which is that pseudonymity is incredibly difficult to maintain. All it takes is one motivated person to decide to reveal your identity, and suddenly your pseudonymity is broadcast on so called "attack sites". And there doesn't seem to be any way to eliminate the possibility that someone is going to be motivated like this. So what do you do, scrutinize every edit to make sure that you're not revealing anything about yourself? Never use IRC or skype or Yahoo email, lest you reveal your IP address? Use Tor for every edit in case you accidentally get logged out or follow a link to an unfriendly outing site? Where's the fun in that? What's the purpose? To make sure some African kid is well educated when he starves to death?
I hope you don't mind that I'm putting this back on the list. I don't think you've said anything confidential so I think this is OK.
Hoi, Stalking and anonymous editing are two completely different subjects. Stalking is the subject of this threat. When you argue that true anonymity does not exist, it is a two way street. It is also the stalker who is not anonymous, it is exactly the stalker who is to be researched for his IP address and his personal details.
Anonymity is not at issue here. What is at issue is how we deal with people that stalk and the people that are stalked. As has been stated time and again, stalking is a continuum with people going to prison and dying on one extreme and scrutiny of edits by people on the other.
What I am looking for is a protocol for the legally actionable stalking. In this protocol we describe a way of helping stalking victims in their dealing with the police, how to find help.. The aim is to protect and prevent harm to the victims, the community and its projects. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The main good reason to edit anonynously is because
Wikipedia is an open wiki and is incapable of
preventing harrasment or any less seious sort of
contact.
That seems to me more like a reason not to edit at all.
I don't see why.
Well, mainly because the popular Wikipedias don't have any remotely reasonable mechanism to allow anonymous edits. Tor is banned from en.Wikipedia, so in order to edit anonymously you have to create a new account for each edit, and where's the fun in that? Maybe Tor is allowed on the Wikipedia you edit? I realize this is foundation-l, so I'm trying not to assume too much about which project you're referring to.
I guess I should clarify that I don't think the fact that Wikipedia cannot prevent harassment is enough of a reason to not edit at all *for everyone*; only for those who find themselves unable to edit without hiding themselves from the other editors. And I'm not really sure if you fall into that or not. You say you "have no problem owning up to my pseudononymous edits", so 1) it sounds like you are willing to reveal your identity to other editors; and 2) you're not editing *anonymously* in any case, you're editing *pseudonymously*.
This goes back to one of my earlier statements, which is that pseudonymity is incredibly difficult to maintain. All it takes is one motivated person to decide to reveal your identity, and suddenly your pseudonymity is broadcast on so called "attack sites". And there doesn't seem to be any way to eliminate the possibility that someone is going to be motivated like this. So what do you do, scrutinize every edit to make sure that you're not revealing anything about yourself? Never use IRC or skype or Yahoo email, lest you reveal your IP address? Use Tor for every edit in case you accidentally get logged out or follow a link to an unfriendly outing site? Where's the fun in that? What's the purpose? To make sure some African kid is well educated when he starves to death?
I hope you don't mind that I'm putting this back on the list. I don't think you've said anything confidential so I think this is OK.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you argue that true anonymity does not exist, it is a two way street.
Please read more carefully, I did not make that argument.
Anonymity is not at issue here.
It may not have been a major issue in the Shankbone incident, but anonymity, pseudonymity, and outing, did play a large role in other (real life, legally actionable) stalking incidents.
What I am looking for is a protocol for the legally actionable stalking.
You're definitely not going to get such a protocol from a public email list, especially one which isn't focussed on such discussions and to my knowledge has no experts in this field sending messages to it. Try hiring an expert, maybe?
Anyway, back to the discussion at hand, I don't think *pseudonymity* is necessarily a bad thing. I don't think it should be suggested as a solution to the problems of stalking, but I think it does have some minor uses. My comment was that "I can't think of any good reasons to edit Wikipedia anonymously". Anonymously, as in not tying any of your edits together at all.
--- On Sat, 6/14/08, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: My comment was that "I can't think of
any good reasons to edit Wikipedia anonymously". Anonymously, as in not tying any of your edits together at all.
I think I misunderstood you comment as it was within a discussion about whether to recommend never or always using your real name as your account name. I thought you were saying you didn't see a reason to not use your real name as the account name. Which others were suggesting.
Birgitte SB
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I think I misunderstood you comment as it was within a discussion about whether to recommend never or always using your real name as your account name. I thought you were saying you didn't see a reason to not use your real name as the account name. Which others were suggesting.
Right, I read your post prior to this and I pretty much agree with it completely. I don't myself use my real name as my account name, and I don't plan on doing so. My reasons are somewhat different from yours, but I think yours are perfectly reasonable.
My response to the discussion about whether to recommend never or always using your real name as your account name is no. Neither should be recommended, because neither solves the problem.
--- On Sat, 6/14/08, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking Article To: "Birgitte SB" birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, June 14, 2008, 6:48 AM
The main good reason to edit anonynously is
because
Wikipedia is an open wiki and is incapable of
preventing harrasment or any less seious sort
of
contact.
That seems to me more like a reason not to edit at
all.
I don't see why.
Well, mainly because the popular Wikipedias don't have any remotely reasonable mechanism to allow anonymous edits. Tor is banned from en.Wikipedia, so in order to edit anonymously you have to create a new account for each edit, and where's the fun in that? Maybe Tor is allowed on the Wikipedia you edit? I realize this is foundation-l, so I'm trying not to assume too much about which project you're referring to.
I guess I should clarify that I don't think the fact that Wikipedia cannot prevent harassment is enough of a reason to not edit at all *for everyone*; only for those who find themselves unable to edit without hiding themselves from the other editors. And I'm not really sure if you fall into that or not. You say you "have no problem owning up to my pseudononymous edits", so 1) it sounds like you are willing to reveal your identity to other editors; and 2) you're not editing *anonymously* in any case, you're editing *pseudonymously*.
This goes back to one of my earlier statements, which is that pseudonymity is incredibly difficult to maintain. All it takes is one motivated person to decide to reveal your identity, and suddenly your pseudonymity is broadcast on so called "attack sites". And there doesn't seem to be any way to eliminate the possibility that someone is going to be motivated like this. So what do you do, scrutinize every edit to make sure that you're not revealing anything about yourself? Never use IRC or skype or Yahoo email, lest you reveal your IP address? Use Tor for every edit in case you accidentally get logged out or follow a link to an unfriendly outing site? Where's the fun in that? What's the purpose? To make sure some African kid is well educated when he starves to death?
I hope you don't mind that I'm putting this back on the list. I don't think you've said anything confidential so I think this is OK.
Perfectly OK. I was actually beginning to draft a message and changed my mind but accidentally hit send instead of delete. My email program tends to automatically set up the email to the person I am replying to and I have to change the address to the list manually.
But you misunderstand my goal. It is not to remain anonymous or to never be connected to my edits. It is simply to make it more difficult to be contacted by someone who knows my name. I have actually revealed my identity as I attended a Wikimania. If you wanted to discover my identity you probably could and that doesn't worry me. I simply don't wish googling my name to bring someone to a website I am active on the first page.
You say pseudononminity is difficult to maintain. This is true, but it does not mean that it offers no benefit. If I am harassed I will quit editing. But there is no reason to not edit because I might be harassed. Or to make it very easy for someone looking for Jane Doe to find me on wiki by using Jane Doe as my account name. As I said before I can be distressed by this person but they are not going to show up at my door and hurt me. And frankly they will get my address quicker my telling another relative they wanted to send a card than by tracing my IP. They know where I work and have called me there and sent letters there. They don't bother me too often because I am probably only occasionally on their mind and I have done well with not responding to them in any way that might encourage more contact. I tend to think if they were able to easily keep track of what I am doing online it would provoke them into making contact more often and give them a better chance of saying something where I would lose my cool and react. This is not about perfectly protecting myself but about simply making me less vulnerable to this person. Pseudononmity does make me less vulnerable because however little it does to prevent someone who wants to get the person behind BrigitteSB the person who wants to get to Jane Doe really doesn't have an angle.
Birgitte SB
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org