I have been wondering if it were not possible that someone provides the link between his real identity and his pseudonyme, and as such is allowed to be granted membership and voting rights under the real name. This with keeping private the information. After all, we accept donations, and agree to keep the names of the donators private. Why could not we just do that as well for the members ? Then, as soon as the link between the two names is validated, the member is accepted for commenting and voting under his real name, without making his wikipeida identity known publicly. Possible ? Optim a écrit:

Optim wrote: That's right. As to what sort of procedure I ought to use to ensure that there is not rampant vote fraud from fake names (because even if I say you have to be a person and can only vote once, how am I to know without such absurdities as requiring identification), I'm open to suggestions. But, in the best wiki spirit, my guess is that this will not be an appreciable problem. We will learn from experience, but mostly I think we can trust people to do the right thing. --Jimbo

Membership is not designed to be anonymous: Article II sec. 2 states that to be a free or paying member you must submit an application of membership to the Secretary agreeing to abide by the Wikimedia Code of Ethics, submission standards and policies. It can be online or via mail. Paying members could submit their application via the internet, i.e. if they have a verified paypal account, That process would seem to indicate that you could require the application to be verified by a notary, thus ensuring that it is from a distinct individual. That is usually what NPO membership coordinators due is verify membership status, so it is not outrageous to ask someone to fill out a form, get it notarized and mail it to someone to be entitled to vote. Giving every user account the right to vote is obviously not an option if you are looking for some kind of legitimacy because one person could open hudreds or thousands of user accounts and capture the voting process that way. Anyone who gets elected to the free volunteer position on the Board will be subject to public scrutiny. Anyone who is on the board must divulge their identity as it will be on the annual tax return that Wikimedia must send into the government each year that is a public document so if someone later discovers that they stuffed the ballot box that will be civil fraud (and maybe even a crime). Maybe Wikimedia could adopt something along the lines of that federal electronic voting program that has been in the news lately: http://www.serveusa.gov/public/aca.aspx Alex R. (en:user:alex756)

Alex T. wrote: It doesn't seem outrageous, no, but it does seem a bit of overkill esp. for the first year's elections. I would say that a bit of commonsense on my part will go a long way towards eliminating or at least minimizing any problems. I agree with that 100%. It doesn't seem too terribly difficult, though, for the Foundation to keep the identities of members reasonably private, though. On Monday I will write up and post a proposed procedure for the voting, to be critiqued well-and-good I'm sure. --Jimbo

Delirium a écrit: A notary ?!? Well...I never had the use of a notary, even to receive an heritage :-( I suspect we will have to find easier ways to prove we are real citizens. Perhaps an id number, perhaps a copy of an official letter, perhaps a web site with enough standing references to prove we exist...

Alex R. a écrit: We have no such thing in France. We show our identity card, a copy is provided if necessary. Until recently, we could go to the city hall, and have an official copy of it for case such as this one, but the practice is now bogus. There is no other way to prove our identity than to show an identity card, or to request a birth statement from where we born. Which is rather infrequent.