[WikiEN-l] Privacy and Accountability (was Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 50, Issue 169)

[Armed Blowfish]

On 25/09/2007, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2007 at 20:45:31 -0400, "Armed Blowfish"
> <diodontida.armata at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps all users should be prohibited from contributing under or
>> revealing their real names on WP, to prevent this sort of thing from
>> happening.  Those who have already done so could have their
>> usernames changed and their names removed from WP.
>
> That would be a step in the entirely wrong direction.  Wikipedia
> makes too much of a fetish out of preserving "anonymity" as it is, at
> the expense of accountability.  While I wouldn't want to go as far as
> Citizendium in requiring real name use all the time, the opposite
> approach you're advocating, of using all fake names, is even worse.
>
> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

Firstly, you do not know what anonymity is.  Anonymity is
different from pseudonymity.  Anonymity means you do
not even use a fake name - your contributions each stand
separately, indistinguishable from other anonymous
contributions, and you do not build a reputation.
Pseudonymity means you do use a fake name, a pen name
or whatever.  This means your pseudonymous contributions
are distinguishable from contributions made under other
pseudonyms, and you do build a reputation under that
pseudonym.

IP addresses can be pseudonyms too, albeit ones that do
not map 1:1 to human beings (but then, hey, neither do
pseudonyms, or even real names).  IP addresses are not
securely pseudonymous, and can generally be traced
back to human beings.

In order to support anonymity, Wikipaedia would need to
allow editing without logging in via anonymising networks
such as Tor.  Wikipaedia does not do this.  Not even allowing
logged in edits via such anonymising networks, Wikipaedia
does not support secure pseudonymity either.

The security and accountability differences between anonymity
an pseudonymity are significant.  When anonymous, even if
your identity is discovered for one of your anonymous
contributions, it cannot be discovered what other anonymous
contributions you have made.  This could be of great importance
for Chinese dissidents.  If, however, you are pseudonymous, if
the real-life identity of the pseudonym is discovered, all
contributions made by that pseudonym can then be linked to that
real-life identity, which could be bad news if one is, for example,
a Chinese dissident.

Note that there are different kinds of accountability - accountability
in the online arena and accountability in the real world.  Examples
of online accountability include killfiles, yelling, blocking, banning,
emotional harm, emotional harassment, defamation, etc.  Examples
of offline accountability include suing, stalking, physical harm, more
extreme emotional harm, defamation resulting in difficulty getting
jobs, etc.  Those who are anonymous are not accountable in all but
the mildest of ways.  Those who are securely pseudonymous are
accountable only in online ways, so long as they remain
pseudonymous.  Those whose offline identities are known are
accountable in all ways that they can be.

Probably the only form of offline accountability that is ever desirable
is the ability to be sued.  Firstly, if you want to sue someone, I
suggest you start by privately telling him or her why, how much you
want, what interest rate, and, if the person is pseudonymous,
whether you will accept pseudonymous payment.  Court isn't good
for anyone - everyone loses except for the lawyers.  In any case,
how many of us do you think are accountable in the sense that if
sued for any significant amount of money, we would not be forced
to declare bankruptcy?  Note that in the UK, Wikipaedia itself can be
held accountable for failure to remove defamatory information.  See
Defamation Act 1996 and Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm
http://www.cyber-rights.org/documents/godfrey_decision.htm

As for other forms of offline accountability - privacy can literally save
lives, jobs, and physical well-being.

Online accountability itself can go too far - even a pseudonymous
entity does not deserve to be defamed.  Okay, so a pseudonymous
entity cannot sue and remain pseudonymous, but it is better to
defame a pseudonym simply because the opportunity for retaliation
is less?  That is the logic of a coward.

Now, what advantage is there in an unverified 'real name'?  It could
be a pseudonym which merely looks like a real name, which does
have a long and distinguished history.  Baroness Karen von
Blixen-Fineck, for example, published under the pseudonym Isak
Dinesen.  Male pseudonyms have most likely been used by a number
of women throughout history to evade sexism.  Men have also used
pseudonyms, e.g. Samuel Clemens / Mark Twain.  But in any case,
why encourage unverified real names, which may be pseudonyms,
rather than pseudonyms which are obviously pseudonyms.  Certainly,
there may be more security in a pseudonym which looks like a real
name, as people may not bother to try to out you if they think you are
already outed.  On the other hand, it could be a way to defame
someone who really does posses that name, as was pointed out
earlier.