Wikipedia talk:The overuse of anonymity at Wikipedia and a proposal

May I just say I would like to see more Wikipedians encouraged to use their real names? When I set up my account here there was no question about that.

How about at least a userbox and Category:Wikpedians who use their real names? I would have done so myself but I didn't know if others would find it provocative. Daniel Case 03:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for people using their real names, but it might not be a good idea to encourage people to draw attention to that fact. Harassment by internet creeps is one of the main reasons people don't want to use their real names. What I would like is for people who don't want to use their real names to be encouraged to use plausible pseudonyms (i.e. a fake name like "Sam Carver" or "J. L. Metzger"). This makes the people who do use their real names stand out less.—Nat Krause^(Talk!)

I have always edited under my own real name (my user name is actually my initials, which I have used online since, well, before the Internet was the Internet, but my user page has my full name, location, and professional details), and I'd like to see some sort of movement to encourage that among more editors. A category and/or userbox would be a good start. --MCB 05:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I said encouraged, not required. If people are afraid of Internet harassment (and I can well understand; some past vandalism to my user page was done by people I was acquainted with at the time), they don't have to use their real names. It's that simple. I just think a category and userbox would be a way of saying, for those who want to, "I stand behind what I write and do here". Daniel Case 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That could open the door for lawsuits against Wikimedia in the case something does happen to someone. Having a category could be very bad, as it could be a place for trolls to lurk. Michael 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not if it's strictly voluntary. Daniel Case 06:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymity

This is problematic solution to vandalism, if the taget group is annon IP then the solution is to require registered accounts with an email authentication, its a no cost format. A persons "real name" doesnt add value to the contributions but does create preconcieved perceptions about a persons POV. Though I may be unknown to someone from the US or Europe I may be a publically known figure in Australia and as such my contributions will be judge based on who I'm by people who know my public life and not by what I have written with or without cites. To sit in open western cultures where censorship, religious restrictions and political opinions are something that isnt a concern doesnt mean it should not be a consideration, if anything we should be valuing our freedoms by ensuring that people without those freedoms arent being further oppressed by our actions. Finally to say Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone but first you must pay to prove who you are is at odds with that. Ultimately the cost of reverting vandalism is nothing compared to cost some individuals will pay under such a system. Gnangarra 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

One other thought what do we do with Good faith cause we cant ask people to assume good faith if we dont practise it. Who decides when annonymity is to applied and how ? Gnangarra 08:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with these statements, and I want to further emphasize the importance of anonymity with regards to free speech. The EFF has been quoted as saying, "Anonymity is critical to public discourse and fundamental to a free society, allowing speakers to offer diverse views without fear of undue reprisal." If the goal of wikipedia is to create the most complete, difinitive encyclopedia ever, we must diligently afford as many people as possible the opportunity to share and reflect upon the knowledge they have and their own perspectives. In doing so, we not only get the most amount of information, but we also get a consensus of opinion. Anonymous posters can safely challenge the valaditity of an article without fear of reprisal in their personal lives, and this drives us to greater accuracy and NPOV reporting.

I urge you to read some of the information shared by the freenet philosophy on anonymous internet usage: [1]

Just as Gnangarra has shared, imagine you are a public figure and wish to add information to wikipedia. Not only will the information we receive be tainted by our preconceived perceptions, as Gnangarra mentions, but this public figure might also face public scrutiny outside wikipedia. We must not allow this to happen as it hampers the mission of wikipedia. I think one way to implement some of your ideas here is to put a premium on registering, or to "incentivise" it. We might draw out anonymous postings as a lower category of user, one whose comments might be restricted either by a time delay, required approval, or some other mechanism. For instance, anonymous postings might go to a subpage on the wiki (like this talk page) which people can see but are held back from the main article for a given period of time. Should any additions be identified as vandalism they can easily be marked for speedy deletion. A more restrictive approach would be to require anonymous additions to be approved by registered users(although I do not particularly favor this approach).

I think we need to recognize that wikipedia needs to transition from acquiring information at all costs, to a more mature, review-based approach. When will we ever complete an article? Still, I would strongly argue against removing the ability for users to anonymously post material, especially since that material can be just as valid as non-anonymous material. --Mherlihy 10:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Only require a valid email

In extreme Arbcom cases, I can imagine where editing only by verified real name accounts would be useful. How about a quick email verification for anonymous accounts instead? It is common on lots of sites these days. I think people have come to expect and accept that. Just a simple email verification would probably cut down on a large number of anonymous vandels yet still make it easy enough for new authors to post comments and new information. Jeff Carr 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That does not as possibly compromising of safety. Michael 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea

I also use my real name (my last name takes a bit of digging, but little more than looking on the mailing list archives..., or googling). I think encouraging people using psudonyms to use "plausible" ones is a terrible idea - confusing people about whether or not someone is using their real name is not helpful in any way, as far as I can see. This proposal could be done, in a clumsy way, right now - I presume that Amazon accounts will let you provide a "Home page" - just link to your Wikipedia userpage there, and put a link back on the userpage (while logged in) and that associates the two together as being by the same person. And if the Amazon account has a real name attached, that's associated too. JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

not everybody has or wants an amazon account, the only people that will do this are already using their real name anyway. Gnangarra 17:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The advantage of confusing people about whether or not someone is using their real name is that it will discourage nogoodniks from seeing someone's name and deciding to hassle them in real life. My angle on a "use real names" policy is that its main goal is basically the same as an office requiring its workers to come to work in a business suit, or at least dressed business casual rather than in cutoffs and a t-shirt. It is conducive to a more responsible atmosphere. New users will see that everyone is using "real names" and will tend, therefore, to use their own real names. In order to have this effect, it doesn't really matter if my name is really Nat Krause—it's just a question of the impression that I'm giving. Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Reason to stay pseudonymous

• I don't understand how you get past the incident of extreme harrassment through the wikipedia as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive90#User:Gator1. --A Y Arktos\^talk 00:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several ways of looking at this. Anyone whose name appears in public is susceptible to harassment. It's necessary to make a decision about how much you will compromise your normal behaviour in order to avoid problems like that. In most spheres of life, people are happy to have their names attached to their work, rather than trying to hide. Maybe Wikipedia is intractably different. Personally, I have no plans to become an admin, nor to edit Wikipedia from work. That reduces my concerns about harassment. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not this is enough of a risk to require a pseudonym; currently the section on "real names" in Wikipedia:Username warns about possible harassment, just as it should. In addition, I believe that Wikimedia should take vigourous legal action against anyone who harasses editors outside of the wiki (Wikimedia apparently does not do this, which does make using one's real name seem more problematic). It would be a real shame if it turned out that people who edit Wikipedia have to do so in secret.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I and a couple of other Australian editors are currently being hassled in Australia by an editor operating from a major ISP. See RfC and recent behaviour. Not all of us who have been abused are admins - for example [2] (includes threats relating to his employment) and [3]. I have complained to the ISP who have done nothing to cut off her water. I am very pleased to be pseudonymous when there is somebody out there in cyberspace abusing me. Her behaviour is not rational and I don't know where it could stop - we are in the same geographical vicinity. I can't see that the Wikimedia foundation could manage worldwide vigorous legal action.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)