On 6/29/07, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@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
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l- bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Walker Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:02 AM To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Editors' exclusion due to privacy
On 6/29/07, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@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.
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.
I guess the next question might be: why does such a person want to join the UK Chapter? There could be many other organizations that might be better placed to represent the views and aspirations of said person.
Might be worth re-visiting the objects...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
See also:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,,1546162,00.html
Dated Thursday August 11, 2005
*** As the movement gets bigger, its organisation becomes more difficult. Already there are Wikimedia "chapters" in Germany and France, who help organise fundraising and hand out administration tasks. A UK chapter (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK) is also beginning to form, with a small group of wikipedians meeting in central London every couple of months.
One of its regulars, Dave Gerard, a part-time volunteer editor and full-time computer system administrator, freely admits he is "addicted" to Wikimedia and spends several hours every day on work related to the site. Like most editors, his primary motivation is to do "some public good". "I've been filling my head with information for decades," he says. "This is a chance to get it all back out again."
He is not alone. Ever since the library of Alexandria was built, the dream of amassing vast quantities of information has inspired the world. "What we're doing," says Wales, is building "a world in which every person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." ***
Gordo
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Joly [mailto:gordon.joly@pobox.com] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 11:22 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Editors' exclusion due to privacy
I guess the next question might be: why does such a person want to join the UK Chapter? There could be many other organizations that might be better placed to represent the views and aspirations of said person.
Perhaps because the entire Wiki* concept is about putting time and care back in, and supporting some quite special objectives. I think the presence of many, many good quality, dedicated editors who devote a significant time to doing so on the Wikimedia Foundation's websites under conditions of anonymity, are good evidence that there is usually not a doubtful wish, or a suspect motive as implied.
Put simply, the desire to become more involved in one area of Wikimedia, would not to my mind necessarily be a contradiction to the desire to continue to edit with personal anonymity in another area, as many have done in the past and continue to do.
So the above comment is essentially an old argument on privacy recast in a new form, "If they don't have something to hide, why do they care about anonymity". I don't think that helps. It's not a wish whose motive is suspicious, or necessitates editors being directed to seek "other organizations that might be better placed to represent [their] views and aspirations".
Given how many UK-based editors continue to edit anonymously, the assumption must be that a significant number of those who would wish fully to be members of Wikimedia UK and might contribute well (and wish to) as members, will avoid doing so to save their anonymity (if this is not considered carefully), and may, if limited in how much they are permitted to be involved, feel excluded. If it's unavoidable, then so be it... but it's definitely worth exploring from a point of view of "how can we help and involve them as much as possible", not just "why would they care, and why should we".
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
I see. And how would that be "democratic"?
No representation without presentation!
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org