Grants talk:IdeaLab/Anonymity - Aliases: Difference between revisions
→Deny recognition of (potential) trolls: new section |
→Deny recognition of (potential) trolls: I'm just pointing at the essay, not sure if it applies to vandals vs trolls |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
You've a sound theory here, but it fails to address the matter vis-a-vis our sockpuppetry policy, which may actually cause more accounts and more hostility on site. Moreover, if it were to come out that multiple aliases were used, a clever person could track the given names and establish a pattern. How would compensate for this issue? [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|talk]]) 05:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC) |
You've a sound theory here, but it fails to address the matter vis-a-vis our sockpuppetry policy, which may actually cause more accounts and more hostility on site. Moreover, if it were to come out that multiple aliases were used, a clever person could track the given names and establish a pattern. How would compensate for this issue? [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|talk]]) 05:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Deny recognition |
== Deny recognition == |
||
See [[w:en:Wikipedia:Deny recognition]] --[[User:AVRS|AVRS]] ([[User talk:AVRS|talk]]) 18:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC) |
See [[w:en:Wikipedia:Deny recognition]] --[[User:AVRS|AVRS]] ([[User talk:AVRS|talk]]) 18:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 18:23, 3 June 2016
Strongly contrary
For users of Wikimedia projects, it is very important to know the name of who has modified a page for a lot of reasons:
- first of all, to speed up revision process; in fact, because I contribute to Wikipedia since many years, I know who is a trustworthy user, so I can concentrate in doubtful contributions that come from users I do not know;
- secondly, it is is important to identify a user in order to have a better communication; for example, it happened that I have to talk with someone that I know has a good knowledge of a particular subject that I know too, so for this reason we can talk together freely; instead if I do not know it, we need to spend more time talking before to realize we do not need to explain things we know yet;
- thirdly, users that are renowned to make good contributions, can receive thanks and recognition (e.g. barnstars) from other users and in this simple manner they will be more motivated to contribute.
For all these reasons, I think anonymity is not a solution, instead it could be a great problem and could lead to an increase of vandalism. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Strongly in favour
Due to current policy, we shun many potential contributors who share Wikimedian values, such as Tor users, activists in repressive countries or otherwise vulnerable groups. This unintentional, yet selective exclusion could also strenghten structural bias in Wikimedia projects. I suggest we look into ideas such as Blind signature or similar crypto schemes to preserve users' privacy. NMaia (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
You've a sound theory here, but it fails to address the matter vis-a-vis our sockpuppetry policy, which may actually cause more accounts and more hostility on site. Moreover, if it were to come out that multiple aliases were used, a clever person could track the given names and establish a pattern. How would compensate for this issue? TomStar81 (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Deny recognition
See w:en:Wikipedia:Deny recognition --AVRS (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)