-----Original Message-----
From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-
bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Walker
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:02 AM
To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Editors' exclusion due to privacy
On 6/29/07, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
I don't get it.
There is no need to disclose your online identity when registering as
a member of the charity (a company limited by guarantee).
So me [User:LoopZilla] and me "Gordon Joly" are distinct. I have
chosen to link them up, but I didn't need to.
Companies House has no idea that the person who is a director of two
companies (one is a charity) is also [User:LoopZilla] on several
Mediawikis.
Gordo
We've set things up with exactly this in mind Gordon - to become a
member of the company (to vote at general meetings, become a board
member, pay a pound to any creditors if we are wound up, etc.) you
will need to provide your identity but not any on-line personality. In
the case where you cannot join the company (if you are too young,
won't provide a real identity etc.) you can still be considered a
member of the chapter (and a supporter of WER). It's not necessary to
provide any information about any on-line pseudonyms in either case.
I think the suggestion on this thread is to attempt to find a way for
people to influence the company by having a vote at general meetings
without providing any identity. This is what Alison is discussing.
Cheers,
Andrew
Thanks for two reasonably reassuring replies. If there are a sensible number
of members then a userbox on Wikipedia user page "This person is a member of
Wikimedia UK" doesn't ID a specific person. I'm thinking of people who will
want to 1/ declare support and involvement openly on their user pages,
whilst 2/ remaining not personally identified. This becomes possible if
there are a fair number of members, such that matching up becomes
impractical to do for most people.
As to your last point, yes, but not in a malicious or improper way. Rather,
in the same sense that many editors wish to have an "influence" and show
support on articles and processes on Wikimedia Foundation websites "without
providing any identity". My question in this thread has been more, how can
a person wishing to remain anonymous to ill-wishers on
wiki*.org achieve
that without exclusion from support to the company as a member. "Anonymity
through obscurity" is rarely ideal; the search for another method seems
worthwhile.