Comments on: The Wonderful Wicked WikiPedia! http://azania.wordpress.com/2005/12/19/hello-world/ Stuff that has nothing to do with Really Learn Spanish Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:59:11 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Scott Cushman http://azania.wordpress.com/2005/12/19/hello-world/#comment-143 Scott Cushman Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:33:45 +0000 #comment-143 People may not realize it, but WikiPedia has no true anonymity. Sure, you may not have to use your name, but your IP address is logged and associated with the update you made. Though your IP address may change the next time you unplug your cable modem, I'm willing to bet the data trail could lead a good lawyer or a government with a chip on its shoulder straight to your door. So, if you really want anonymity on WikiPedia, you'd better learn to use a good proxy and encryption. The rest of us might as well be using our real names. People may not realize it, but WikiPedia has no true anonymity. Sure, you may not have to use your name, but your IP address is logged and associated with the update you made. Though your IP address may change the next time you unplug your cable modem, I’m willing to bet the data trail could lead a good lawyer or a government with a chip on its shoulder straight to your door.

So, if you really want anonymity on WikiPedia, you’d better learn to use a good proxy and encryption. The rest of us might as well be using our real names.

]]> By: Anne http://azania.wordpress.com/2005/12/19/hello-world/#comment-25 Anne Sat, 08 Apr 2006 06:20:13 +0000 #comment-25 In practical terms, given the large numbers of people writing for Wikipedia, how useful would non-anonymity really be? I mean, the goal is for it to be easy for somebody to just get an account and write something; that's how they got tens of thousands of editors. So how can you reconcile this with real non-anonymity? The most you could hope for would be an email address and an IP address, which really don't prevent pop-up editors from writing nonsense. The non-anonymity you really want is there already - you judge someone's contributions to Wikipedia by their reputation within Wikipedia. Some users have made thousands of valuable contributions; you trust them more than anonymous users or users who've done nothing but fight edit wars. In practical terms, given the large numbers of people writing for Wikipedia, how useful would non-anonymity really be? I mean, the goal is for it to be easy for somebody to just get an account and write something; that’s how they got tens of thousands of editors. So how can you reconcile this with real non-anonymity? The most you could hope for would be an email address and an IP address, which really don’t prevent pop-up editors from writing nonsense.

The non-anonymity you really want is there already – you judge someone’s contributions to Wikipedia by their reputation within Wikipedia. Some users have made thousands of valuable contributions; you trust them more than anonymous users or users who’ve done nothing but fight edit wars.

]]> By: Johan van Rooyen http://azania.wordpress.com/2005/12/19/hello-world/#comment-4 Johan van Rooyen Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:07:24 +0000 #comment-4 Actually, I agree people should take precautions and act anonymously when they are in danger of being repressed. But, however valid and correct their utterances might be, they are not going to have the same credibility as those made by identifiable, accountable authors for the simple reason that it might not always be possible to distinguish an anonymous hero from an anonymous shyster. Actually, I agree people should take precautions and act anonymously when they are in danger of being repressed. But, however valid and correct their utterances might be, they are not going to have the same credibility as those made by identifiable, accountable authors for the simple reason that it might not always be possible to distinguish an anonymous hero from an anonymous shyster.

]]> By: Lion Kimbro http://azania.wordpress.com/2005/12/19/hello-world/#comment-3 Lion Kimbro Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:26:22 +0000 #comment-3 I strongly disagree. You want to allow anonymous contribution, because you want people to be free to express a perspective that may not be particularly popular. Some people live in countries that are very repressive. They know a lot about their country, and could write about it, but can they afford to be identified? What if a relative of yours lives there- what if they take flack, because you're in their family? Closer to home, there are many things that are socially unpopular, but that probably deserve an airing. Let's say that only 10% of people were against the war in Iraq- should they be forced to self-identify, to work on pages in Wikipedia? I strongly disagree. You want to allow anonymous contribution, because you want people to be free to express a perspective that may not be particularly popular.

Some people live in countries that are very repressive. They know a lot about their country, and could write about it, but can they afford to be identified? What if a relative of yours lives there- what if they take flack, because you’re in their family? Closer to home, there are many things that are socially unpopular, but that probably deserve an airing. Let’s say that only 10% of people were against the war in Iraq- should they be forced to self-identify, to work on pages in Wikipedia?

]]>