Wikiversity talk:Respect pseudonyms

From Wikiversity

This policy is intended to eventually be merged into a larger policy, but can be applied independently until consensus can be reached those other more expansive policies (such as Wikiversity:Privacy policy and Wikiversity:Respect people). See Wikiversity:Community Review/Moulton's talk page for evidence of a desire for a policy regarding this specific issue. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Votes (first version) 2 Suggested change 3 enforcement 4 Votes (version of 12 Feb 08) 5 Anonymity is evil 6 Possible reasons for a need for anonymity 7 more discussion? 8 Umbrella wording

[edit] Votes (first version)

[edit] Suggested change

I can't support this as-is, but if we change "linking to an external website" to "linking to an external web page," I think I could support it. "Website" is too broad and a little vague. It could be taken to mean an entire forum couldn't be linked to if one thread somewhere in there has a post that is against the policy. However, I would agree that linking to a specific page that includes "outing" is rude and unnecessary. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt: I think for this proposal to make any sense, there needs to be a level of personal responsibility. People need to do there part. Like don't disclose that you use a certain pseudonym on a personal website where personal information about yourself is included, if you don't want people to refer to you by another name. If you're name isn't out there because of you and yet someone manages to figure it out and make the connection, than by all means Wikiversity should do something about it when used here. I see this as being similar to what's said about editing: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Basically, If you don't want your name to be used mercilessly by others, do not make it easy for people to figure out your name. --darklama 15:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be blunt in turn, that sounds like blaming the victim to me. This happened to Moulton on Wikipedia, he retaliated by doing the same, and a few months later Wikiversity became a battleground. There's absolutely no need to refer to or address someone in a way other than they prefer, and absolutely no reason not to have it in policy that people can expect that the courtesy be extended to them. Wikiversity should be a safe place for people to participate, teach, and learn, and it's not unreasonable to expect that the kind of behaviors leading up to our current situation will never be tolerated again. --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutes are too black and white. Wikiversity shouldn't be making rash decisions based on the actions of one person. If someone is writing a biographical learning resource, they would have a very good reason to use a person's name. If someone is writing a learn resource and wants to discuss people who responsible for currently shaping ones understanding of a subject, they would have a very good reason to use a person's name also. Anyone who might be worth learning about and teaching about is a potential Wikiversity or Wikimedia contributor as well.

I see this sort of proposal as being like saying "Since a person keeps putting forks in electric outlets, people shouldn't be allowed to have electric outlets in there home any more." I see your argument as saying "You shouldn't blame the person for putting a fork in an electric outlet, its the electric outlet's fault." I think this approach will get more in the way of learning and teaching, than it will make people feel save, in the same way as removing electric outlets to make people feel safe would leave people in the dark. --darklama 21:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, your analogy seems to imply "punishable stupidity" on the part of those who don't cover their tracks. "Do not make it easy for people to figure out your name" leaves things a bit open... who decides what's easy? This is about making people feel comfortable, and as much as you might dislike black/white or good/bad distinctions, such distinctions are much easier and simpler to abide by and rely upon as opposed to fuzzy-gray-wafflish statements which will encourage any abusive troll to see it as an opportunity to play the game of "push the envelope".

All that aside, I don't see why someone would need to violate this policy in order to discuss a fellow wikimedia contributor, unless there was a serious conflict on interest that explained that person's behavior (and even then, it still might not be necessary). --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikiversity community could decide what reasonable precautions a person needs to take, when its reasonable or unreasonable to use a person's name, when a person's name is or isn't relevant to a learning project, and define what's easy. I just disagree with the assertion that using a person's name is never reasonable. I also think its unnecessary to make people feel safe or comfortable with using Wikiversity.

A Wikiversity participant may need to violate this proposal in order to write learning resources about researchers, politicians, scientists, mathematicians, astronauts, etc. who are leaders in there field or have made substantial contributions to there field, if they happen to also be Wikimedia contributors as well. Writing about anyone listed on w:Famous Wikipedians or w:Category:Notable Wikipedians for instance would likely require violation of this proposal. --darklama 23:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The people in those categories made it clear who they were on the wiki, so it wouldn't apply. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There are probably many more famous or notable Wikipedians written about that people don't know are Wikipedians because they didn't make it clear who they were on the wiki. Wikiversity shouldn't be limited to writing only about famous/notable Wikimedians who have made it clear who they are on wiki. I think this proposal makes learning about people who would normally be covered in a course harder. A catch 22: You can't respect pseudonyms if you don't know a person is a Wikimedian and uses a pseudonyms, and you can't write about such a person who would otherwise be written about if you must only refer to them by their chosen pseudonym. Wikiversity participants would basically have to give up writing about anyone who doesn't use there real name on Wikiversity in order to make sure they were safely not violating this proposal.

To summarize my reasoning: "You must refer to Wikimedians by there chosen pseudonyms" means "You mustn't refer to Wikimedians by there real name". Anyone is a potential Wikimedian so therefore "You mustn't refer to anyone by there real name". --darklama 13:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You can discuss them using their pseudonym if you're discussing them in the context of their activities within Wikimedia. If you're talking about someone notable otherwise, there's rarely going to be any reason to discuss their activities within Wikimedia. If there is a good reason to make a connection between a real name and a pseudonym, just ask them if it's OK. I guess maybe a "just in case" clause could be added where if this really is getting in the way of something, an exemption could be requested on community review. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] enforcement

Congrats on crafting a policy proposal that makes sense. But enforcement provisions are lacking. The penalty for murder is not the same as the penalty for driving over the speed limit. I propose that the penalty for breaking this proposed policy be limited to deleting any questionable edit made by that person; so that someone like myself is given wide latitude in linking, but someone like Moulton who appears to have deliberately tried to see how far he could push be liberally redacted. "Yo, Joe, the more you appear to be upsetting people for no good reason, the more no one cares if your edits are reverted." WAS 4.250 12:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

IOW, warn first, then take other measures if the warning is not heeded? Seems fine to me... honestly I think all the policies should be enforced in that matter, but for the time being it's probably a good idea to put that within the policy, since very few policies have managed to pass community approval or survive edit warring :-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The enforcement paragraph you added probably represents consensus; even if blocking is for practical purposes not possible with some technically competent persons. I suppose there are people at Wikipedia that are as motivated as Moulton and and can be counted on to waste as much time as he does in undoing whatever he does at Wikiversity. Oh well, Moulton enjoys tilting at windmills and some others enjoy what they perceive as punishing others. Win-win?? WAS 4.250 16:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we haven't put it to a vote yet to see the consensus, but hopefully it's simple enough and reasonable enough (I'll maybe put it on sitenotice today or tomorrow to get wider input).

This isn't just about Moulton, btw... there have been a couple of other incidents (but in those cases the people who put that sort of content on a page voluntarily removed it without need for policies or even threats of sanctions). For my part, I want to have this as a policy so that it's just clear that nobody can do this, thus creating a comfort zone for people when deciding whether or not to take part in projects that study Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedians who make those projects happen. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes (version of 12 Feb 08)

The version of 12 February, 2008 differs from the original in a number of ways, so better to restart the vote here:

1. Support -- I heavily agree. I want to remain anonymous in Wikiversity. This is the place for new ideas. And new has always been subject to fear, dislike, disagreement, discouragement, avoidance, anger, and attack. "Truth survives us. But first makes us angry." wikiversity can easily avoid fights. remaining anonymous avoids the fight to reach out of wikiversity. Saeed.Veradi 09:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Support -- Anonymity on the wiki is very important to many people, and the community needs to support those who choose to be anonymous. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
   • comment. The proposal has serous flaws that should be discussed before it is put to a vote. --JWSchmidt 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - The current version addresses an important concern of many contributors and this policy is clearly needed given past abuse. --mikeu ^talk 15:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
   • On the first sentence:

     Wikimedia contributors have the option to remain anonymous, by choosing a pseudonym as their user name. This choice needs to be respected by other Wikimedia participants

     -This is not the place to discuss a wikimedia policy. It should be proposed at meta:。- Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
   • The policy relates to behavior on Wikiversity, but none of the wikis require the use of real names (as opposed to Citizendium, our "cousin project"). --SB_Johnny ^talk 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
   • If the policy relates to Wikiversity, then it should say such ... "Wikiversity contributors". If this is an inter-wiki issue, I agree with Hillgentleman that it should be discussed at Meta. Historybuff 08:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
   • It relates to what's acceptable on Wikiversity, but most of the problems we have seen with this is people connecting the names and pseudonyms of Wikipedia contributors, so "Wikimedia contributors" describes who is "protected" by the policy. You kinda missed the circus on that one, Historybuff :-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
     • I was on a break but a little about what went on -- but I think that might help, as I wasn't a party to the dispute. I understand that this is a specific situation, but our community should focus on dealing with WV. Cross wiki policy should be formulated cross wiki. Otherwise, what stops someone from migrating to another project and doing the same thing? Historybuff 21:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support as per Saeed.Veradi and SBJohnny. There are many good reasons to remain anonymous and other venues protect anonymity. WV should as well. --AFriedman 21:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Reluctantly because I cannot abstain.--John Bessa 19:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is instruction creep. Try to get a feedback from other wikimedians at meta:wikimedia forum even if you intend to apply this rule only to wikiversitans. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 01:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What is "instruction creep"? --AFriedman 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a note there, but I'm not sure why you think this is instruction creep. --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Read at W:instruction creep.--Piotrus 14:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the note at meta:wikimedia forum and came here out of curiousity. There is nothing in the suggested policy that contradicts policies or common practise in Wikimedia projects. If you would not accept anonymity/pseudonyms however this would as far as I know be the first Wikimedia project to do so, and that might be a meta issue. Regards, Finnrind 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnrind, In the beginning but not afterwards, Wikipedia logged the ip-address as well as the user name for every contribution; there was no anonymity to speak of. Anonymity is not as sacred or fundamental as you are painting it. SBJohnny, Your comment on meta:wikimedia forum misrepresented my position; I have not said this proposal runs against any existing policy; but it is an instruction creep in the sense that it unnecessarily restricts the freedom of wikiversitians: your concerns should be covered by civility and privacy policies; "respect psedonyms" can easily become a slogan and misapplied (like people who say "no original research on wikipedia" often forget to read the policy itself), and even become a political tool. The spirit of this proposal applies equally in every wikimedia project; and if this is such a good and useful policy, I don't see why it shouldn't be reciprocated in every wikimedia project; that is why I suggested that you left a note a the wikimedia forum. I don't think, for example, it would be adopted in English wikipedia, for I believe existing policies already cover what should be covered. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 08:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's covered on Wikipedia under w:WP:HARRASS. How could this become a slogan? --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Thank you, Johnny. That is what I want. It is not that we want to respect pseudonyms for its own sake, but we want to forbid use of real-life identities as a form of harrassment. 2. As I said, wikipedians use "No original research" (which is really about providing valid sources to your contents) as a slogan and I have seen some experienced wikipedian claim that the entire Classical Chinese wikipedia is original research. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 11:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would say this could be a general (non-binding) guideline for dealing with pseudonyms, but the policy should be about such fundamental issues as civility, harrasment or privacy. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it really needs to be binding, to be honest. It's not just aimed at harassment, but also to ensure that pseudonymity/anonymity are respected in the course of creating Wikimedia-related research projects. One rather crucial difference between Wikiversity and the other Wikimedia wikis is that editors themselves can become the subject of study: on the other wikis, you generally only talk about a user in the context of a dispute. Here, we might study how a particular contributor helped to create content, or perhaps contributed to policy, etc. In that context, someone might want to make a connection between pseudonym and real-life identity without any intent to do harm. In that case, the policy simply requires that you get permission from the user to do that, and provides for cases where that connection is extremely important but permission is denied or the person couldn't be contacted.

For example, one of the Wikimedian Demographics surveys asks about sexual preference. If someone is using that data to create a learning resource, I don't think it would be such a great idea to permit researching the responder's real identity. I've also gotten some feedback from people I contacted about participating in Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections about this issue, since many of the contributors to those articles are pseudonymous, and are a bit uncomfortable about being the subject of or participating in a research project here because of the "outing" issue (even if the "outing" is not done in a malicious way).

FWIW, I would be happy to adopt a version of the HARASS policy here, but it's a huge policy, and I suspect it would be easier to evolve a Wikiversity-appropriate version by putting together smaller policies which can later be merged into larger ones. However, this policy isn't just about malicious behavior, it's about respecting people's choice to use a pseudonym :-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. See section below for rationale; oppose anonymity on principle.--Piotrus 14:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• I disagree because I think a general policy on respecting people, harassment or ethics would make better sense. This proposal is too sketchy and completely misses the mark. I don't think this proposal would make people feel any safer about being the subject of a learning project. This is instruction creep because it tells people not to do something, which is more likely to make people do it than not do it. I think the Wikiversity community would benefit from a more thoughtful policy that discusses appropriate or acceptable ways to create learning projects about people or Wikimedia contributors, rather than telling people what not to do. --darklama 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ditto on darklama. --Swift 07:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Anonymity is important for some contributors and students. StuRat 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot support allowing users in a academic context to craft content without having the accountability of a real name and real identity. People have no need to create a separate identity to work here and shouldn't be. I have no problem with teaching fluffy125, but I utterly refuse to be taught by fluffy125. Geoff Plourde 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  You decide what is true by who says it? - WAS 4.250 18:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  You'll be hard pressed to find someone for whom it does not play a role. Similarly, few judge solely based on that factor. You can't draw either extreme position from any of the arguments here. --Swift 06:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymity is evil

Read my essay here. And in academia, people are used to their real names. Anonymity will simply encourage more trolling. Wikiversity editors should be encouraged to declare their real name and position within the academia.--Piotrus 14:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a similar premise to Knol, Google's answer to Wikipedia. I think both approaches work, and perhaps Wikimedia should be the venue for anonymous contributions because it has historically been so. --AFriedman 15:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible for Wikiversity to guarantee that someone making an edit at Wikiversity is who he claims to be. WAS 4.250 11:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with that? --AFriedman 16:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WAS 4.250 was saying that's a problem, it's just a fact :-). If there were a real need to do so, we could do something like that through OTRS or a similar system, but I don't see why we would need to (it's not like we're granting diplomas or anything).

Piotrus, we already have anonymity as a matter of fact: anyone can make an account under any name and just start editing (even more, you don't even need to make an account!), so the point here is to avoid trolling/witch-hunting/etc. It's fine to encourage people to use their real names, but if they prefer to use a pseudonym their choice should be respected. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am split. Anonymity may impede our desire to achieve respect amongst brick-and-mortar institutions, especially since many names seem silly, but the whole concept of wiki-ness provides a level of freedom that actually creates security. This idea of "security through insecurity" is counter-intuitive but undeniable--a major break-through when it first happened. I guess anonymity is going to have to stay. In my case I use a pseudonym, but I will probably make it my real name in the future. --JohnBessa^talk 17 February 2009

One thing that I like about Wikiversity (and indeed, any WM project) is that you don't have to be a respected professor to get your 2 cents in. This forum isn't about how many letters you have after your name, but rather the quality of your contributions. And really, that should be what you are judged by, not what name you use to edit or whatever else. Whenever you can game a system (and even those systems that force you to use a "real" name can be gamed) there will be trolls. The question is, do you focus on the trolls or the quality contributions? Historybuff 21:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The choice to be anonymous should be sancrosact and those who purposesly out other users should not be permitted to be a part of this project. Just my two cents. Users should be addressed by the name that they choose. I am one who has chosen to use my own. Those seeking tenure in real institutions might be discouraged from participating if the felt that a conflict here might be linked to them IRLMurray F. White 00:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a degree of anonymity, as my username is that of my website projects. If people do need to use their real names to edit, shouldn't they email OTRS with an identity-verifiable email (e.g. yourname at placeofemployment.com or .co.uk) maybe possibly with a link to a website/domain they own, if they have one?

I don't use my real name for privacy reasons, but it makes sense to respect pseudonyms. --Sunstar NW XP 11:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(Object) In principle I think anonymity should be allowed. On Swedish Wikipedia (a special case maybe), I heard of an editor creating an account with his real name. He became privatelly harassed for some editing conflict. This is not the normal, and I'm not anonymous actually, but you have to surf through my jungle of private pages on a diversity of pedias in order to find my real identity. A certain degree of privacy is to be preferred in most cases, even though anonymity is also needed in a few cases. I think that the culture not the policies shall regulate this. rursus 08:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm contradicting myself, and speaking rubbish. My unconfused standing point is: this policy proposal shall be a policy. For the rest, ignore everything that doesn't fit that pattern. rursus 09:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Possible reasons for a need for anonymity

It seems the consensus is for preserving anonymity, but I want to provide a real-life example of why anonymity might be necessary on the Internet. Three years ago I was alarmed by an event in Mexico: a real estate developer bulldozed a dog shelter with the dogs still inside. I joined a group to protest this event on the Care2 activist community that called for a Mexican boycott. Suddenly I found myself pursued by what I (still) believe are nationalist gangsters. From what I know about the topics of cultural bias and gangsterism (both tending to killing) I felt it prudent to shorten my last name to its first initial. I found a topic on the Blaming the Victim wp page that might be helpful: Just World Hypothesis. From the page, there seems to be denial that they world can be a dangerous place. Extending that, perhaps predatory people might want to strengthen the misconception to make victimization easier.--JohnBessa^talk 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

John, Your problem can be dealt with in a general policy of privacy. Pseudonym is just one aspect of privacy. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 17:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't get your point (I will let it pass).--JohnBessa^talk 19:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't get Hillgentleman's point either. What has privacy policies of hidden user settings to do with the risk for foul and illegal behaviors from aggressive harassers, criminals and power abusers? Have I understood this anonymity thing wrong? rursus 08:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] more discussion?

Both viewpoints have merits. A solution could be to allow anonymity and make a way for admins or scholars to know if someone is an academic--which seems to be considered important by the main opponents of anonymity. However, academics also generally greatly respect freedom of speech and freedom of thought--such as for thought: libraries not having to give circulation records to the government. That is because librarians think people should be allowed to study anything--even if it is controversial--without a threat to their education. Libraries may not have some books such as in the case of weapons of mass destruction, so one would probably have to check out many books and learn much from other sources, but that is not the point here yet.

What if someone publishes something so controversial that it either verges on illegality or is even reasonable (or about a subject that people deserve to study if they want) but non-mainstream? In certain cases it is likely few people would want to reveal their name, though if they think it is important they may state their interests and reveal their knowledge that way and by writing. For that reason it seems one cannot argue all the reasons for non-anonymity in a page as short as this.

Hence, I may vote for anonymity, but what is the Wikimedia privacy policy, really? Libraries have been pressured to release circulation records, but some strongly resisted. If Wikimedia is pressured or threatened/bribed by 'the law' to give info on authors, would they do so?

Perhaps those who want such records can find out most any IP address communication record if they work at it, so a question should not only be 'Is anonymity good?' but 'What can we do to protect anonymity?' Surely there is a way to do that and make Wikimedia better for academics. Until there is more discussion on such of these topics to clear them up I do not think I will vote (also to respect both sides.)--Dchmelik 02:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The wikimedia privacy policy is something to protect the foundation rather than individual editors. It is silent on this (community) matter. If anything, it is more like "we cannot guarentee the privacy of our editors - use wikiversity at your own risk." Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Umbrella wording

I am a bit confused by the wording here. It says Wikimedia editors. Are we talking about a project-specific issue? I do not see how we, here in The English Wikiversity have the jurisdiction to talk about ALL Wikimedia. Please correct me if I am wrong and I did not understand the issue. Thank you. Kushal one 01:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This proposal currently sets its scope to

...addressing or referring to Wikimedia contributors on Wikiversity... (emphasis mine)

The reference to Wikimedia contributors may just have been put in to show that people frequently contribute to multiple projects and may have different preferences on each.

Not that it matters much. There is evidently no consensus for this. --Swift 02:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)