I see. And how would that be "democratic"? No representation without presentation! Gordo -- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///

-----Original Message----- 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".