[WikiEN-l] [[Daniel Brandt]] is gone again

[Todd Allen]

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>   
>> Slim Virgin wrote:
>>     
>>> At some point, we'll have to face that allowing any account, even a
>>> very recent one, to take part in policy discussions, BLP issues, and
>>> important AfDs is editorial, moral, and legal folly.
>>>
>>>       
>> That kind of abject elitism would make us a very different place.
>>     
>
> Not necessarily a worse one.
>
> I'm not about to suggest that we require accounts registered in real
> identities, but it might make sense to divide the Wikipedia community
> from the people who edit Wikipedia.   The members of the community
> aren't trolls, for the most part they're not anonymous and they don't
> conceal their identities (although I recognise that there are
> significant exceptions to the latter two).
>
> I don't see any reason why a Wikipedian should demand that his voice
> be heard while his identity is uncertain.
>
> I'm not proposing that we go down that path, but it's a very
> respectable position that deserves consideration.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>   
Isn't there already a Citizendium?

Now, personally, I don't care all that much if anyone knows my real
name. I've gotten death threats and the like before, and I'm still alive
(though more than one person might wish otherwise). But I can understand
why some people may wish to conceal their real-world identity. If that
person still consistently shows consideration and good judgment, I'm
certainly still willing to give them a presumption of trust. (Do you
know me better because you know Seraphimblade's real name is Todd Allen,
or do you mainly know me through what you've interacted with me?)

As to the rest-if someone, whether they're new or have been around
forever, comes along and makes thoughtful, considered arguments, they're
deserving of consideration. If someone else, whether they're new or have
been around forever, comes around to post a long flaming rant devoid of
critical thought, that's not deserving of much consideration. The
content of the post, not the signature at the end, should be the
deciding factor.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070614/b4af8a83/attachment.pgp