[WikiEN-l] Ramifications to wikipedians of unmasking of police blogger?

[Tim Starling]

Phil Nash wrote:
> AGK wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8103132.stm
>>>
>>> One wonders what ramifications the High Court's decision in the
>>> "Night Jack" case has for UK wikipedians. Should we approach
>>> pseudonymous editing with a different perspective, now that the
>>> court has confirmed itself as unwilling to uphold the anonymity of
>>> online contributors?
>>>
>>> AGK
> 
> I would think not, since it seems a major influence on the judge's decision 
> was consideration of the public interest; I would think it very rarely in 
> the "public interest" for a Wikipedian's actual name to become public. There 
> are also different considerations in that a serving police officer is liable 
> for disciplinary sanctions, whereas I cannot necessarily see that applying 
> to WP editors.

The proceedings that Sam Blacketer linked to
<http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1358.html>
make it clear that public interest is only relevant if the information
is given in confidence, and the claimant has a reasonable expectation
of privacy. The judge ruled on the grounds that there was no
expectation of privacy, and only speculated on what the balance of
public interest might be.

So if you reveal your real name to a journalist after making it clear
that it is confidential and "off the record", and the journalist
publishes it, then there will be a public interest question. But if
the journalist meets you at a local Wikipedia meetup under false
pretences, then follows you back to your house, then finds your name
from your address in public records, then there is no public interest
question since confidence is not breached.

-- Tim Starling