On the moral bankruptcy of Wikipedia’s anonymous admins

[Kelly Martin]

It's more like looking after toddlers/pupils/students (depending on maturity), trying to contain misbehaviour through training and education to some degree, and occasionally removing the ones that keep biting/harassing the others.

It's absolutely telling about Wikipedia's community that the closest analog to a Wikipedia admin that you can come up with is playground monitor. Note that I am not meaning to diss playground monitors; my kids' school has some very nice ones. It's just that I find that adults seem to get along fairly well in most of their endeavours without needing them.

[rd232]

With all due respect.......trying to claim that administrators "don't have to" deal with content issues, or it's "not in their official remit" to deal with content, probably isn't even going to hold water, much less help with "writing an encyclopedia". The fact is, as we've seen over and over, the general public often believes that Wikipedia administrators "fix" bad articles. It is a very widespread belief, unsupported by any evidence as it is.

I'm not sure how widespread the belief is that it's specifically administrators that handle the content problems. But regardless how many believe it, that doesn't make it true.

So, what IS the "editorial agency", sir? Who is supposed to repair bad content, or biased content? Tinkerbelle? Harry Potter?

erm, well, basically yes: [[User:Tinkerbelle]] and [[User:Harry Potter]] - i.e. ordinary editors. That's the idea, and in terms of most content, I think it's the practice. Most content is contributed by non-admins; most problems are caused, and fixed, by non-admins.

[Kelly Martin]

I'm not sure how widespread the belief is that it's specifically administrators that handle the content problems. But regardless how many believe it, that doesn't make it true.

I've even seen Wikimedia spokespeople (including, gasp, The Holy Jimbo) suggest, if not outright state, that Wikipedia's administrators are responsible for resolving content problems. That's how widespread the belief is.

[rd232]

It's more like looking after toddlers/pupils/students (depending on maturity), trying to contain misbehaviour through training and education to some degree, and occasionally removing the ones that keep biting/harassing the others.

It's absolutely telling about Wikipedia's community that the closest analog to a Wikipedia admin that you can come up with is playground monitor. Note that I am not meaning to diss playground monitors; my kids' school has some very nice ones. It's just that I find that adults seem to get along fairly well in most of their endeavours without needing them.

Well at the upper end of the spectrum I was going for university tutor... But basically, in terms of metaphors, that's more understandable than waffling something generic about facilitators of content generation in a collaborative environment.

[rd232]

I'm not sure how widespread the belief is that it's specifically administrators that handle the content problems. But regardless how many believe it, that doesn't make it true.

I've even seen Wikimedia spokespeople (including, gasp, The Holy Jimbo) suggest, if not outright state, that Wikipedia's administrators are responsible for resolving content problems. That's how widespread the belief is.

Possibly they were referring to extreme cases - i.e. that admins can take certain measures in relation to BLP enforcement. And I doubt that they said "responsible for" - more likely it was some phrasing implying that they *do* fix problems when necessary, not that they *have to* (and implying nobody else can). More about soothing words that someone will take care of problems than definitively assigning responsibility, I would guess.

[DanMurphy]

When I have my editor hat on I'm a gate-keeper. I decide who we trust to publish, and how much they get rewritten. I am frequently involved in discussions about which contributors to deep six, which that may be flawed (writing, temperament, whatever) that have enough talent and respect for what we're trying to do that they're worth keeping around.

This is precisely the game that wikipedia's senior editors administrators are playing. Except they're unaccountable, not managed by accountable people, and generally unqualified and incompetent.

"This is precisely the game that wikipedia's senior editors administrators are playing." No, it isn't, and I'm shocked that someone who seems to think they know Wikipedia thinks so. I can't stress enough that admins do not make the sort of judgements the Editor of a paper does, choosing contributors and contributions on the basis of quality. Judgements they may make are (supposed to be... I covered this in previous post) all *behavioural*, about who can't follow rules designed to ensure people get along with each other in a collaborative environment. Even decisions like "this guy keeps inventing fake sources, he has to be banned" which is clearly about editorial quality are not supposed to be made by admins qua admins: they're supposed to be community decisions, enforced by admins with technical tools they have.

You want a metaphor for admins? It's nothing like Editor-in-Chief or even Editor of Some-Subject; admins do not have personal fiefdoms where their say is final (not officially, not securely - I'm talking principles). It's more like looking after toddlers/pupils/students (depending on maturity), trying to contain misbehaviour through training and education to some degree, and occasionally removing the ones that keep biting/harassing the others.

None of this negates what I said in previous posts about *some* impact on editorial outcomes, but your comparison is so way off base I have to be emphatic about just how wrong it is.

We are at an impasse. I'm dealing with observed reality. You are dealing with your attachment to a failed ideal.

[greybeard]

That this dysfunctional puppet show is indulged, in which it's pretended that somehow the people who wield power over who writes the encyclopedia have no editorial agency, is a sign of how far down the rabbit hole people there have gone.

You're moving the goalposts there. ... Basically, despite the fact that there may be many individual examples of bad-faith admin actions which can be traceable to an intention to affect content outcomes, the long-term impact of that, as a proportion of all the project's editing activity, is going to be a lot less than the sort of people who end up on this forum will be inclined to imagine. Most editing manipulation is not from admin actions, it's from socking and the like.

You can't even keep your argument straight. "Individual ... bad-faith admin actions ... intended to affect content" are nonetheless a "[small] proportion of the project's editing activity". Well, that falls into the category of "true, but not helpful". The issue here is not the great mass of Wikipedia's "editing activity". No one in their right mind gives a crap about the quality of editing on Pokemon articles, fictional universe characters, or minor sports figures -- i.e. the inconsequential bulk of "editing activity" on Wikipedia, the massive "Trivia-o-pedia". No one really cares if a hoax article on the "Great Horse Buttering Incident of 1876" lives on Wikipedia for weeks or months.

What concerns "the sort of people who end up on this forum" is the administrative manipulation, directly and indirectly through protection of partisan editors, of content in controversial and current-events areas of Wikipedia, medicine and health issues, and biographies. In these areas these "Individual ... bad-faith admin actions" can have a tremendous real-world affect, which is precisely why they do it. The Wikipedia articles on contended Israeli/Palestinian settlements are consulted by (idiotic and lazy, but still) news people, and infiltrate the wider discourse, which is why Jayjg (when he's around) protects those who edit them in one way, but not the other. SlimVirgin keeps the word "terrorist" out of "Animal Rights" articles with a heavy hand. When Stephen Colbert makes a joke about how many elephants there are in Africa, it wouldn't be funny if it weren't evident to many that Wikipedia can be manipulated to suit a political aim.

Vandalism like "Abe Lincoln was teh GAY" is not a problem on Wikipedia. Sock puppets, by and large, are not a problem on Wikipedia by themselves. The problem on Wikipedia is at the crux of "anybody can edit" but "some can edit more effectively than others", i.e. admins and those protected by them. The cult of WP:RS is carefully manipulated by these admins (and other senior editors) to steer articles toward their partisan viewpoint. Anonymous editors wielding citations have much, much less influence on busy or controversial articles.

I am a professional editor. ... When I have my editor hat on I'm a gate-keeper. I decide who we trust to publish, and how much they get rewritten. I am frequently involved in discussions about which contributors to deep six, which that may be flawed (writing, temperament, whatever) that have enough talent and respect for what we're trying to do that they're worth keeping around. This is precisely the game that wikipedia's senior editors administrators are playing. Except they're unaccountable, not managed by accountable people, and generally unqualified and incompetent.

Someone should cast that in bronze and hang it over the door.

[EricBarbour]

I am a professional editor. ... When I have my editor hat on I'm a gate-keeper. I decide who we trust to publish, and how much they get rewritten. I am frequently involved in discussions about which contributors to deep six, which that may be flawed (writing, temperament, whatever) that have enough talent and respect for what we're trying to do that they're worth keeping around. This is precisely the game that wikipedia's senior editors administrators are playing. Except they're unaccountable, not managed by accountable people, and generally unqualified and incompetent.

Someone should cast that in bronze and hang it over the door.

Even if it was tattooed on Jimbo's forehead, it would be ignored. Because content writers are giving up, the whole thing will slowly degrade into bizarre incoherence and
pointless fighting over "turf". The main issue I see: the people like Rd232 absolutely refuse to admit there is a problem. Being gamesters themselves.

[TungstenCarbide]

I don't know why I bother but...

I am a professional editor. I am not a scholar, but I work in an environment where we're supposed to be even-handed with all subjects, and that's taken more than usually seriously at the Monitor (I'm an atheist myself, but I fought tooth and nail against the unfortunate retirement of our traditional tagline "To injure no man, but to bless all mankind." ) When I have my editor hat on I'm a gate-keeper. I decide who we trust to publish, and how much they get rewritten. I am frequently involved in discussions about which contributors to deep six, which that may be flawed (writing, temperament, whatever) that have enough talent and respect for what we're trying to do that they're worth keeping around.

This is precisely the game that wikipedia's senior editors administrators are playing. Except they're unaccountable, not managed by accountable people, and generally unqualified and incompetent.

I'll add that Wikipedia's culture is ill - it doesn't reflect the goals of the project. Too many in leadership positions don't have interests aligned with the stated goals of the project. This is simple to demonstrate, as I've done many times before, by looking at the edit history of people like NewYorkBrad, Kat Walsh, Gregory Maxwell and so on. These are admins, board members and arbcom members who don't create significant content. Contrast this with many top content contributors like Cla68, Giano and Dr. Buckner (and so many others who fly under the radar) who you see being treated badly, run off and marginalized. A huge portion of administrators make vast quantities of mindless edits - they are there for diversion, not to engage in content creation. There are formulas to gain adminship that involve hanging out on irc, learning how to run mindless vandalism revert software and participating on drama boards. In this context, is obvious why no serious quality system has been implemented, and also why experts and serious content contributors chafe at working under idiot admins and internet nutcases empowered to screw with them.

[rd232]

Because content writers are giving up, the whole thing will slowly degrade into bizarre incoherence and
pointless fighting over "turf". The main issue I see: the people like Rd232 absolutely refuse to admit there is a problem. Being gamesters themselves.

Say what? Do I need to create a signature that says Yes Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Commons (delete as appropriate) has problems to be able to disagree with what people say here about the nature, causes or extent of those problems without having "he refuses to admit there's a problem" thrown in my face every other post? Do I?

[rd232]

I'll add that Wikipedia's culture is ill - it doesn't reflect the goals of the project. Too many in leadership positions don't have interests aligned with the stated goals of the project. This is simple to demonstrate, as I've done many times before, by looking at the edit history of people like NewYorkBrad, Kat Walsh, Gregory Maxwell and so on. These are admins, board members and arbcom members who don't create significant content. Contrast this with many top content contributors like Cla68, Giano and Dr. Buckner (and so many others who fly under the radar) who you see being treated badly, run off and marginalized. A huge portion of administrators make vast quantities of mindless edits - they are there for diversion, not to engage in content creation. There are formulas to gain adminship that involve hanging out on irc, learning how to run mindless vandalism revert software and participating on drama boards. In this context, is obvious why no serious quality system has been implemented, and also why experts and serious content contributors chafe at working under idiot admins and internet nutcases empowered to screw with them.

This.

[EricBarbour]

Say what? Do I need to create a signature that says Yes Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Commons (delete as appropriate) has problems to be able to disagree with what people say here about the nature, causes or extent of those problems without having "he refuses to admit there's a problem" thrown in my face every other post? Do I?

That's a start. Thank you. Now, do it on Wikipedia and Commons.

[roger_pearse]

I read the following with some interest, defending anonymous admins.

... the basic point that admins don't make editorial decisions *qua* admins...

I'm not sure that I understand this. My experience is that *every* normal contributor defers to an admin. It is normal, even in discussion fora, to listen when an admin expresses a view (or fails to do so), on the basis that he represents the project. Indeed, as a rule, failure to do so will usually be cause for a block on editing rights, whether in Wikipedia or a forum.

one of the bigger complaints against old-hand admins is losing touch with building content.

You don't indicate whether you agree with this complaint. But it is a reasonable one. Contributors find the whole world of admin-land utterly baffling.

As to whether public identification of admins would improve the quality of dispute resolution: I doubt it.

Here I must disagree. People who believe themselves anonymous can and do run amok. Those who know that what they may be held accountable take much more care not to pick fights. This is not Wikipedia specific; it is an element of human nature. And since dispute resolution is usually an accusation by one person aghainst another, I can tell you that being "tried" by an anonymous judge is a revolting business. I won't be tried like that, myself; I doubt that I am alone in this.

It would massively strength the tendency for only the thickest-skinned WP-adminship-is-everything-to-me admins to dominate.

I confess that I do not see this; unless we are accepting that Wikipedia is a seething mess of hate, and violence, and that people will be afraid of physical violence and harassment? If so, the problem of admins is a mere detail on a much larger problem which needs addressing.

And ... how do magistrates in the real world handle this? If the situation is that bad?

Those for whom it's less important, who do their best but have real lives (families, friends, careers) they don't want to expose to random disgruntled nutters the world over, they'll resign to avoid identification, or else drift away from hard cases that might cause them RL trouble, or (over time, in future) never sign up for the poisoned chalice of adminship in the first place.

The good admins, no doubt. But ... should we have a site of random disgruntled nutters?

For those remaining, how much difference will make it to have their biases established slightly more clearly than now (they're usually fairly clear)? They'll probably just carry on doing what they can get away with.

Of course. But at the moment there is no real limit to how badly an admin can behave towards an ordinary chap who wanders in. If these vermin (and I suggest that anonymity means that these are an ever-larger proportion of the whole) had to post their real identity, they would hesitate to act quite that badly, for fear that someone will come round with a baseball bat.

Remember that when a normal person is maltreated on Wikipedia by an admin, they have no recourse. They have already found that Wikipedia doesn't work. And the troll admins know it.

Power must always be tempered by responsibility. Anonymity always is an attempt to evade this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[rd232]

I'm not sure that I understand this. My experience is that *every* normal contributor defers to an admin. It is normal, even in discussion fora, to listen when an admin expresses a view (or fails to do so), on the basis that he represents the project. Indeed, as a rule, failure to do so will usually be cause for a block on editing rights, whether in Wikipedia or a forum.

Not in normal editorial discussions about article content, no, this is absolutely not normal. You're thinking of process discussions about editor behaviour, I think. Yes, occasionally "admin" is used as a lazy short-hand for, and marker of, "senior and trusted editor", especially for closing discussions (summarising and drawing a conclusion). But such lazy short-hands may be challenged, and absolutely doesn't mean that the admin's editorial view/conclusion can be backed up by use of their admin tools: any attempt to do so will usually meet vigorous protest.

one of the bigger complaints against old-hand admins is losing touch with building content.

You don't indicate whether you agree with this complaint. But it is a reasonable one. Contributors find the whole world of admin-land utterly baffling.

I'm not sure how frequently it specifically causes problems, but in general, yes, I would say it would be good for admins to take substantial breaks from adminship to (a) concentrate on non-admin things, and reconnect with content and (b) prevent burnout and (c) be reminded what it's like not to have the tools. (On point c I would say exactly the same things for people in positions of power in the real world in politics and business, BTW - it's easy to lose touch with the everyday realities of the rest of the population.) However proposals to that effect haven't gone anywhere because of: admin backlogs; the view that admins should know when to take a break; and the fact that admins might simply stop editing until they get the tools back, rather than edit without them.

As to whether public identification of admins would improve the quality of dispute resolution: I doubt it.

Here I must disagree. People who believe themselves anonymous can and do run amok. Those who know that what they may be held accountable take much more care not to pick fights. This is not Wikipedia specific; it is an element of human nature. And since dispute resolution is usually an accusation by one person aghainst another, I can tell you that being "tried" by an anonymous judge is a revolting business. I won't be tried like that, myself; I doubt that I am alone in this.

It would massively strength the tendency for only the thickest-skinned WP-adminship-is-everything-to-me admins to dominate.

I confess that I do not see this; unless we are accepting that Wikipedia is a seething mess of hate, and violence, and that people will be afraid of physical violence and harassment? If so, the problem of admins is a mere detail on a much larger problem which needs addressing.

And ... how do magistrates in the real world handle this? If the situation is that bad?

Those for whom it's less important, who do their best but have real lives (families, friends, careers) they don't want to expose to random disgruntled nutters the world over, they'll resign to avoid identification, or else drift away from hard cases that might cause them RL trouble, or (over time, in future) never sign up for the poisoned chalice of adminship in the first place.

The good admins, no doubt. But ... should we have a site of random disgruntled nutters?

For those remaining, how much difference will make it to have their biases established slightly more clearly than now (they're usually fairly clear)? They'll probably just carry on doing what they can get away with.

Of course. But at the moment there is no real limit to how badly an admin can behave towards an ordinary chap who wanders in. If these vermin (and I suggest that anonymity means that these are an ever-larger proportion of the whole) had to post their real identity, they would hesitate to act quite that badly, for fear that someone will come round with a baseball bat.

Remember that when a normal person is maltreated on Wikipedia by an admin, they have no recourse. They have already found that Wikipedia doesn't work. And the troll admins know it.

Power must always be tempered by responsibility. Anonymity always is an attempt to evade this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Everything you say here is predicated on the view that (i) internal accountability (accountability within Wikipedia, based on account name alone) doesn't work and (ii) that public identification provides meaningful external accountability. I submit that (i) isn't true - internal accountability is flawed and partial, but you can't simply dismiss it. People do get desysopped! But more importantly, there is no evidence that (ii) is true. None of the examples raised where people in certain positions of power are publicly identified rely on that public identification for accountability. If they did, it would basically be a kind of mob and/or vigilante justice. Magistrates, for example, aren't accountable to random members of the public going round to their house with a baseball bat, and if someone does threaten them, they are part of a legal system which can provide some protection. A telling example: police in public order situations (at least in the UK) are supposed to identify themselves with a badge number - so the public has a handle on that person, and can report them. The requirement is not to show their name, for reasons that are hopefully obvious! Bottom line, you're not willing to be judged by anonymous admins, with at worst the consequence of exclusion from editing (RL consequences as a result of editorial content are not specifically admin territory). Fine. But what sort of non-anonymous admins will be willing to perform that role when the worst consequence in the real world is who-knows-what? It's not like the Foundation can or does give support, or local police are that good at dealing with harassment (especially if it's not local). There are fundamental structural issues that preclude ready comparison with real-world institutions, and you can't simply remove anonymity without addressing the function it plays in that structure.

PS most sites that *employ* moderators don't publicly identify them - even though these people are paid and in the event of problems might expect some degree of support from their employer. Nor are there usually processes of even minimal accountability in terms of trying to make decisions transparent and giving at least a handle (username) to who has made it. You use Facebook, for example? You're agreeing to completely anonymous and untransparent moderation. Just a thought.

[rd232]

Re-reading my previous post, I'm suddenly struck that this entire discussion (and thread title) has been using the wrong term: Wikipedia admins are not anonymous, they are pseudonymous. This makes an enormous difference: if they were anonymous (whenever acting in an admin capacity at least), you'd get things like "you have been blocked by Unspecified Wikipedia Admin" and "this ban discussion has been closed by Unspecified Wikipedia Admin". See the difference?!

[EricBarbour]

I submit that (i) isn't true - internal accountability is flawed and partial, but you can't simply dismiss it. People do get desysopped! But more importantly, there is no evidence that (ii) is true. None of the examples raised where people in certain positions of power are publicly identified rely on that public identification for accountability. If they did, it would basically be a kind of mob and/or vigilante justice.

They already have a mob. The old "cabal" gang.

Few administrators have committed more blatant abuse than Jayjg (T-C-L). He has never been desysopped, just placed under temporary restrictions, especially in Israel/Palestine editwars. Do you see anyone proposing to desysop him?

Few have committed more disgusting abuse than Elonka (T-C-L). She used Wikipedia to promulgate her own autobiography, biographies of her friends and family, and to promote herself publicly. Plus, she abused and blocked uncounted scores of innocent editors, simply for disagreeing. A complete list of her abuses has yet to be compiled, but I suspect it would fill a telephone book. Is anyone proposing to desysop her?

I could say the same for Gwen Gale (T-C-L). Again, she committed abuses that should have gotten her desysopped in 2008, yet is still an administrator today.

Those are three of the worst cases I can point out.
They are not the only ones, if you wish I can list scores more who should at least have their careers on WP examined.

But no one does it. They are a (very pathetic) mafia, protecting and covering for each other.

[rd232]

...Those are three of the worst cases I can point out.
They are not the only ones, if you wish I can list scores more who should at least have their careers on WP examined.

But no one does it. They are a (very pathetic) mafia, protecting and covering for each other.

This isn't the place to discuss specific examples, but in general, yes, there are admins who should have been desysopped who weren't (while others have been deservedly desysopped). That's why I said "internal accountability is flawed and partial, but you can't simply dismiss it". And I would add to that that improving the internal accountability, however hard that is, is more likely to achieve improvements than removing anonymity (aren't those people's RL identities known, for example, in your 3 cases?).

[rd232]

I submit that (i) isn't true - internal accountability is flawed and partial, but you can't simply dismiss it. People do get desysopped! But more importantly, there is no evidence that (ii) is true. None of the examples raised where people in certain positions of power are publicly identified rely on that public identification for accountability. If they did, it would basically be a kind of mob and/or vigilante justice.

They already have a mob. The old "cabal" gang.

Oh, hang on, you misunderstood what I said. I meant that mob and/or vigilante justice would be enabled by public identification. And that's what extra-Wikipedia pressure on the real lives of admins would be, since there would be no additional formal mechanism for adjudicating complaints fairly, just, in essence, "if you don't like what this guy's doing/done (rightly or wrongly, whether your complaint is justified or you're an angry nutter, here's his name, which in this day and age means you can probably easily find out where he lives, who his employer is, any small business they might run whose reputation could be ruined, etc etc".

If we're talking about going beyond internal accountability, then vigilante justice through public identification is not the way. Instead, some kind of independent body would need to review complaints. It's hard to imagine, but that's how things work in the real world - eg in the UK there is the Independent Police Complaints Commission for the police. ArbCom to some extent is an appeal forum for individual admin decisions, but mostly not really, and of course it's not independent. ... I'm not sure whether a meaningfully independent body is really possible here, but that's a much better direction (along with the one I mentioned before of trying to ensure, by identifying to the Foundation, that people can't walk away from a bad-rep admin account and start again and get adminship again).

[roger_pearse]

I'm not sure that I understand this. My experience is that *every* normal contributor defers to an admin. It is normal, even in discussion fora, to listen when an admin expresses a view (or fails to do so), on the basis that he represents the project. Indeed, as a rule, failure to do so will usually be cause for a block on editing rights, whether in Wikipedia or a forum.

Not in normal editorial discussions about article content, no, this is absolutely not normal. You're thinking of process discussions about editor behaviour, I think.

True. But don't you find that, in any discussion about article content which gets a bit heated, the question very quickly shifts from "this is wrong" to "you are a troll"? If so, I'm not sure the distinction means anything.

one of the bigger complaints against old-hand admins is losing touch with building content.

You don't indicate whether you agree with this complaint. But it is a reasonable one. Contributors find the whole world of admin-land utterly baffling.

I'm not sure how frequently it specifically causes problems, but in general, yes, I would say it would be good for admins to take substantial breaks from adminship to (a) concentrate on non-admin things, and reconnect with content and (b) prevent burnout and (c) be reminded what it's like not to have the tools.

What I wonder, in fact, is whether some queries of usage would be illuminating, particularly if they could be graphed over time. What is it that admins do once they have the tools, and who do they do it to and in what contexts? (the query would need to be specified more precisely than this, of course) This would indicate several interesting things; what percentage of admins are really doing things for Wikipedia, and what percentage are self-interested, and how that situation is progressing. I can't say that I have any knowledge of this. Is it possible for non-Wikipedians like myself to do database queries?

The follow-up question, of course, is whether admins don't contribute content as admins, but instead use a non-admin second account to do so? (Which would affect those queries)

Everything you say here is predicated on the view that (i) internal accountability (accountability within Wikipedia, based on account name alone) doesn't work ... I submit that (i) isn't true - internal accountability is flawed and partial, but you can't simply dismiss it. People do get desysopped!

Is there much practical difference between "intermittent justice" and "injustice"? Just thinking of an example, Sir Guy of Gisborne was internally accountable (to King John!), in theory. But most peasants or passing lowly people could have no hope of appealing his 'justice', and would not know even how to do so. The mighty who did know how to do so could of course endorse his full conformance with procedure... :-)

Please ... take on board that it really does not work, so far as the ordinary contributor is concerned. You could find a thousand sites which complain about "insiders". Some of these will be the work of cranks, oddballs, and so forth; but hardly all of them. It's a *structural* problem, not an individual problem.

Everything you say here is predicated on the view that ... (ii) that public identification provides meaningful external accountability. I submit that ... there is no evidence that (ii) is true.

It's an unusual point of view, this, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You see, I don't really feel that anyone has to prove that secrecy breeds lack of accountability and abuse of power.

You use Facebook, for example? You're agreeing to completely anonymous and untransparent moderation. Just a thought.

And an interesting one.

Now I can't say that in Facebook I have ever thought that I might encounter these admins! The nature of the site is different. But isn't the accountability here actually external accountability? -- that Facebook takes responsibility and can be sued, and the admins are merely the faceless minions of the board of directors? Wikipedia doesn't do that, tho. It sets out to evade prosecution. It takes no responsibility for admins. That's why we care who they are. Let them be anonymous, by all means, if they are professionals can be held accountable by normal people in some normal way.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[rd232]

True. But don't you find that, in any discussion about article content which gets a bit heated, the question very quickly shifts from "this is wrong" to "you are a troll"? If so, I'm not sure the distinction means anything.

Accusations of misbehaviour, and adjudication thereof, doesn't mean editorial decision-making (and isn't supposed to).

Is it possible for non-Wikipedians like myself to do database queries?

Yes - you can download the database.

Is there much practical difference between "intermittent justice" and "injustice"? Just thinking of an example, Sir Guy of Gisborne was internally accountable (to King John!), in theory. But most peasants or passing lowly people could have no hope of appealing his 'justice', and would not know even how to do so. The mighty who did know how to do so could of course endorse his full conformance with procedure... :-)

Well, the peasants couldn't even read, and no obvious way of asking for help. Neither is true of Wikipedia editors.

Please ... take on board that it really does not work, so far as the ordinary contributor is concerned. You could find a thousand sites which complain about "insiders". Some of these will be the work of cranks, oddballs, and so forth; but hardly all of them. It's a *structural* problem, not an individual problem.

Yes, it's structural.

Everything you say here is predicated on the view that ... (ii) that public identification provides meaningful external accountability. I submit that ... there is no evidence that (ii) is true.

It's an unusual point of view, this, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You see, I don't really feel that anyone has to prove that secrecy breeds lack of accountability and abuse of power.

I think you're sweeping the distinction between anonymity and pseudonymity (as I discussed in another post) under the carpet with "secrecy". In addition, I wasn't making a sweeping statement about pseudonymity always being just as good as public identification for accountability. I'm saying that merely replacing pseudonymity with public identification in this case doesn't have all the positive effects you and others seem to think, and has negative effects as well. We know exactly who politicians are, and that doesn't stop them being corrupt in various ways.

You use Facebook, for example? You're agreeing to completely anonymous and untransparent moderation. Just a thought.

And an interesting one.

Now I can't say that in Facebook I have ever thought that I might encounter these admins! The nature of the site is different. But isn't the accountability here actually external accountability? -- that Facebook takes responsibility and can be sued, and the admins are merely the faceless minions of the board of directors? Wikipedia doesn't do that, tho. It sets out to evade prosecution. It takes no responsibility for admins. That's why we care who they are. Let them be anonymous, by all means, if they are professionals can be held accountable by normal people in some normal way.

No, the accountability there, such as it is, is entirely internal to the organisation (Facebook). On the one hand, someone at Facebook has the power to hold these anonymous (properly anonymous, not pseudonymous!) moderators to account. On the other hand, we know next to nothing but what and how they do this, and the general public can't contribute to that, because the whole thing is completely untransparent. And no, I doubt anyone can sue Facebook for moderator actions - I'm sure the terms of use allow them to do pretty much what they like.

[Peter Damian]

Time to step back to the post that started the thread, and the blog it linked to. http://larrysanger.org/2012/08/on-the-m ... nistration

I’ve been reading draft chapters of a fascinating book, written by some online friends of mine, about the history and conduct of Wikipedia and its administration. I knew that Wikipedia’s administration is screwed up and somewhat corrupt, but these writers have opened my eyes to episodes and facts that I had not been tracking.

The episodes Larry is referring to were actually not the result of anonymity alone, but rather of the combination of anonymity and secrecy. Some Wikipedia administrators argue that anonymity is OK, because 'everything that happens in Wikipedia is transparent'. I.e. every action is recorded in the talk page history tool or in other logs. Thus the identity of the adminstrator is literally everything that is visible to the viewing public, and therefore no connection to a 'real life' identity is required. As though the world of Wikipedia was the only world that existed (true I think for many of its more obsessive users).

That's a fine theory, but flawed in practice, given the use of many secret channels – principally IRC and email – which conceal the actions of administrators and senior officials. The episode in question involved a number of administrators and arbitrators acting in collusion, by secret correspondence. One of them is completely anonymous and cannot be linked to any person in real life. A few of of them use pseudonyms, but are easily identifiable in real life. One of them uses their real name in their account. What they wish to conceal – and I have been having quite a few emails from them about this – is the fact that they colluded, i.e. they want to maintain secrecy.

Their reason for continuing the secrecy is that they want their actions to remain 'private'. What they did was embarrassing to them, embarrassing things should be kept private, ergo what they did should be kept private. It's an interesting moral question.

So, 'On the Moral Bankruptcy of Wikipedia’s Anonymous Administration' should really be 'On the Moral Bankruptcy of Wikipedia’s Secret Administration'.

I invite those persons, who must be aware of this thread, to step forward and help us with this question.

[rd232]

The episodes Larry is referring to were actually not the result of anonymity alone, but rather of the combination of anonymity and secrecy. .... Their reason for continuing the secrecy is that they want their actions to remain 'private'. What they did was embarrassing to them, embarrassing things should be kept private, ergo what they did should be kept private. It's an interesting moral question.

So, 'On the Moral Bankruptcy of Wikipedia’s Anonymous Administration' should really be 'On the Moral Bankruptcy of Wikipedia’s Secret Administration'.

The issue is secrecy, yes. And incidentally, if you somehow abolished pseudonymity, you can bet there would be a lot more secrecy. Just as in RL, where eg Freedom of Information Act in the UK led to officials and politicians trying to avoid writing things down, using private email accounts, etc...

Of course, it's neither possible nor desirable to abolish secrecy completely - there will always be cases like dealing with private information, say, where it's necessary. Some secrecy doesn't mean that some oversight of how the secrecy is handled is impossible; but it means that you have to at least sometimes trust someone to handle the necessary secrecy appropriately, rather than everyone being able to double-check all their working because it's all transparent and public. A minimum is that actions and discussions should be logged internally for potential review - and that's one area where IRC and email etc cause problems. But desirability aside, the feasibility of abolishing secrecy is erm, limited (which is hardly a problem limited to Wikipedia administration).

[Reaper Eternal]

Alright, I'll bite: What exactly would you do with my personal information if you disagreed with my edits or if I abused my administrative standing? Complain to the University of Cincinnati? Put up harassment pages containing my personal information on ED or similar troll websites? Drive to my residence to discuss my actions with me face-to-face? Call my cell phone to discuss?

Just curious.

[ErrantX]

Alright, I'll bite: What exactly would you do with my personal information if you disagreed with my edits or if I abused my administrative standing? Complain to the University of Cincinnati? Put up harassment pages containing my personal information on ED or similar troll websites? Drive to my residence to discuss my actions with me face-to-face? Call my cell phone to discuss?

Just curious.

I guess their point is that if your personal information is known then it puts you off from abusing your standing; due to risk of such things.

Unfortunately the world doesn't work like that and all manner of crazies exist - so whatever you do someone is somewhere is sure to object.

[DanMurphy]

Alright, I'll bite: What exactly would you do with my personal information if you disagreed with my edits or if I abused my administrative standing? Complain to the University of Cincinnati? Put up harassment pages containing my personal information on ED or similar troll websites? Drive to my residence to discuss my actions with me face-to-face? Call my cell phone to discuss?

Just curious.

It comes down to whether you believe most people respond to reputation risk or not (as I do). Is there a difference between "Joe Bloggs of Cincinnati is a liar and he's manipulated Wikipedia articles to attack people and here's the proof" and "lol1990 who is a resident of planet earth somewhere is a liar and he's manipulated Wikipedia articles to attack people and here's the proof?" I think so.

In specific cases, I think Ashley van Haeften's behavior on Wikipedia would have been far different (and better for him and all concerned I might add) if a real name was required the first time he logged on. The disgraced so-called journalist Johann Hari would have never carried on his campaign of slander on Wikipedia if he had to do so in his own name.

The cult of secrecy is what it is, and I don't see it changing any time soon. But it really can't be argued that people don't, in general, behave worse when they think they're anonymous than when they're clearly identified.

Adding: The Hari case, by the way, is a classic example of the total failure of Wikipedia's internal controls and the upper hand that its anonymous editors have over the named people they frequently attack.

However, one look at the hundreds of Wikipedia edits showed that Hari or someone close to him had been smearing other journalists in an on-going systemic manner for years.

I did not want this to be Hari. In fact, I could not see how Hari would have been malicious and deceitful. After all, this was an established and salaried writer who would not need to do this. He also would always be the first to call out others for bad conduct and duplicity.

On the other hand, the evidence was stark that it was either Hari or someone close to him, and it raised serious issues. It thereby seemed sensible just to see where the evidence would go. However, this in turn would be risky, as Hari was known to use libel threats against those who questioned his integrity. For example, in 2007 he used libel law to have a post taken down.

[rd232]

It comes down to whether you believe most people respond to reputation risk or not (as I do). Is there a difference between "Joe Bloggs of Cincinnati is a liar and he's manipulated Wikipedia articles to attack people and here's the proof" and "lol1990 who is a resident of planet earth somewhere is a liar and he's manipulated Wikipedia articles to attack people and here's the proof?" I think so.

Of course people respond to reputation risk - I've been talking about that in previous posts. The question is, what is the nature of that response? The problem is that the sort of people who care about their reputation such that it might be a positive influence on their behaviour (a) probably are behaving reasonably well anyway and (b) probably are at risk of deciding not to expose their reputation to risk of attack even in case of entirely reasonable behaviour by them. What you're left with then is people who don't care about their reputation, so reputation risk is irrelevant for them.

Also, you're again conflating editorial decisions (manipulating articles) with admin decisions. Unless you require public identification by all editors, then requiring admins to identify does nothing at all (even if we ignore that bad admins would undoubtedly just sock to dissociate their bad behaviour).

Also, all of this is moot unless enforcing public identification in a reasonably foolproof way is actually feasible. I'm not sure that it is.

[Kelly Martin]

Also, all of this is moot unless enforcing public identification in a reasonably foolproof way is actually feasible.

Most emphatically it is not moot, despite the lack of any sort of "foolproof" means of enforcing identification. You anonymity-freaks constantly eject this factoid even though it's demonstrably not true; that you do indicates either that you know absolutely nothing about group dynamics, or that you are willing to lie to defend your prerogatives.

[Reaper Eternal]

I am not asking whether or not requiring identification would work; I am asking what you would do if you did have my information and I abused the administrative toolkit.

[Kelly Martin]

I am not asking whether or not requiring identification would work; I am asking what you would do if you did have my information and I abused the administrative toolkit.

My position is that you would be much less likely to have acquired the administrative toolkit in the first place, were you the type to abuse it and if the community had the expectation that you would give proof of identity before being allowed access to it. Therefore, your question is irrelevant.

[The Devil's Advocate]

It comes down to whether you believe most people respond to reputation risk or not (as I do). Is there a difference between "Joe Bloggs of Cincinnati is a liar and he's manipulated Wikipedia articles to attack people and here's the proof" and "lol1990 who is a resident of planet earth somewhere is a liar and he's manipulated Wikipedia articles to attack people and here's the proof?" I think so.

In specific cases, I think Ashley van Haeften's behavior on Wikipedia would have been far different (and better for him and all concerned I might add) if a real name was required the first time he logged on. The disgraced so-called journalist Johann Hari would have never carried on his campaign of slander on Wikipedia if he had to do so in his own name.

The cult of secrecy is what it is, and I don't see it changing any time soon. But it really can't be argued that people don't, in general, behave worse when they think they're anonymous than when they're clearly identified.

As I noted before, the issue is how far it would go with this identification requirement. Real names on their own would be disconcerting for many on a general point, I would personally feel less enthused about editing anything contentious if people had access to my real name. However, with the exception of people who leave obvious clues or have uncommon or high-profile names, it would not really be enough to discourage the random obscure individual with a vendetta without information that more clearly identifies them. So what exactly would be your requirement? A personal photo? City of residence? Educational background?

Were I required to offer any of that up publicly on Wikipedia I would have no choice but to leave altogether, because I would not even be remotely willing to deal with the potential use of that information by opponents. I think you need to understand that people with grudges or vendettas are actually more willing to accept risk than those who are just interested in getting along and doing good work. This notion of ending public anonymity is more likely to keep the good people away than the bad.

[rd232]

I think you need to understand that people with grudges or vendettas are actually more willing to accept risk than those who are just interested in getting along and doing good work. This notion of ending public anonymity is more likely to keep the good people away than the bad.

This. Exactly this.

[Kelly Martin]

I think you need to understand that people with grudges or vendettas are actually more willing to accept risk than those who are just interested in getting along and doing good work. This notion of ending public anonymity is more likely to keep the good people away than the bad.

This. Exactly this.

These people will do the same thing whether or not anonymity is available. They are neither an argument for nor against anonymity. Therefore, we can now stop talking about them, and focus on the problems that are peculiar to allowing anonymity.

[rd232]

These people will do the same thing whether or not anonymity is available. They are neither an argument for nor against anonymity. Therefore, we can now stop talking about them, and focus on the problems that are peculiar to allowing anonymity.

Well this is all getting a bit repetitive now. To sum up:
(i) we don't have anonymity, but rather pseudonymity. Massive difference. Pay attention at the back.
(ii) the removal of pseudonymity cannot be effectively enforced. (Or if you think it can, I'm all ears)
(iii) the removal of pseudonymity for admins alone, without enforcing its removal for all accounts, is pointless as long as socking is relatively easy.
(iv) the case isn't made that pseudonymous admins behave worse than orthonymous ones, or even that pseudonymous admins whose identity is exposed behave better than before exposure.
(v) any positive effect on the behaviour of the admins whose behaviour we want to improve is likely to be low, for a number of reasons (basically, they have little to lose RL, and high investment in WP).
(vi) the negative effect on the activity and behaviour of admins whose behaviour is fine is likely to be substantial, for a number of reasons (the reverse of v).

[Kelly Martin]

These people will do the same thing whether or not anonymity is available. They are neither an argument for nor against anonymity. Therefore, we can now stop talking about them, and focus on the problems that are peculiar to allowing anonymity.

Well this is all getting a bit repetitive now. To sum up:
(i) we don't have anonymity, but rather pseudonymity. Massive difference. Pay attention at the back.
(ii) the removal of pseudonymity cannot be effectively enforced. (Or if you think it can, I'm all ears)
(iii) the removal of pseudonymity for admins alone, without enforcing its removal for all accounts, is pointless as long as socking is relatively easy.
(iv) the case isn't made that pseudonymous admins behave worse than orthonymous ones, or even that pseudonymous admins whose identity is exposed behave better than before exposure.
(v) any positive effect on the behaviour of the admins whose behaviour we want to improve is likely to be low, for a number of reasons (basically, they have little to lose RL, and high investment in WP).
(vi) the negative effect on the activity and behaviour of admins whose behaviour is fine is likely to be substantial, for a number of reasons (the reverse of v).

You still don't get it. Probably because you don't want to.

[thekohser]

I, for one, am happy that Rd232 supports pseudonymity for paid editors.

[The Devil's Advocate]

You still don't get it. Probably because you don't want to.

Ah yes, the old "OMG! Why do you keep insisting I am not awesomely correct?! Obviously you just don't wish to acknowledge my superb and unquestionable rightness!" What I get is that you are so fixated on how your proposal will stop some of the people you dislike that you don't really consider how it will affect those who are actually doing things right.

Once more, can someone tell me exactly how much identifying information they would want publicly displayed on Wikipedia?

[DanMurphy]

You still don't get it. Probably because you don't want to.

Ah yes, the old "OMG! Why do you keep insisting I am not awesomely correct?! Obviously you just don't wish to acknowledge my superb and unquestionable rightness!" What I get is that you are so fixated on how your proposal will stop some of the people you dislike that you don't really consider how it will affect those who are actually doing things right.

Once more, can someone tell me exactly how much identifying information they would want publicly displayed on Wikipedia?

Real name and country of residence for everyone (very lightly policed, think facebook -- try to make it part of the culture, and explicitly treat unnamed people as second class citizens). All administrative candidates disclose real name, age and educational background publicly, provide scanned ID privately to foundation for confirmation (and require same retroactively for all existing admins).

[roger_pearse]

Once more, can someone tell me exactly how much identifying information they would want publicly displayed on Wikipedia?

Real name and country of residence for everyone (very lightly policed, think facebook -- try to make it part of the culture,

That seems reasonable. I always disclose that much on pretty much every forum I post on anyway. I think most people do, by default, until they learn that anonymity has advantages.

The point about culture rather than enforcement is very well made. There are various bad things about Wikipedia that are handled by enforcement (badly) when it should be made easier to do the right than rather than the wrong thing.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Vigilant]

Once more, can someone tell me exactly how much identifying information they would want publicly displayed on Wikipedia?

Real name and country of residence for everyone (very lightly policed, think facebook -- try to make it part of the culture,

That seems reasonable. I always disclose that much on pretty much every forum I post on anyway. I think most people do, by default, until they learn that anonymity has advantages.

The point about culture rather than enforcement is very well made. There are various bad things about Wikipedia that are handled by enforcement (badly) when it should be made easier to do the right than rather than the wrong thing.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ah, you've made that quintessential rookie mistake.
You are, apparently, sane.

[roger_pearse]

What exactly would you do with my personal information if you disagreed with my edits or if I abused my administrative standing? Complain to the University of Cincinnati? Put up harassment pages containing my personal information on ED or similar troll websites? Drive to my residence to discuss my actions with me face-to-face? Call my cell phone to discuss?

Is this a question about Wikipedia, or about life in general; about what sanctions people face who do bad things?

Are these questions rhetorical? Because it's really a different issue, this, I think, to the point being made, although a perfectly valid one; how should errant admins who are identified be disciplined in a fair and reasonable (and legal) manner.

I am unclear what the connection is with the university of Cincinwherever. But I presume you mean, "What if people complain to someone's employer about what they do online? I need to be anonymous so MacDonalds doesn't fire me for being anti-/pro-<insert cause here>". That doesn't sound like a Wikipedia-specific question to me, but a much larger question for society as a whole.

Setting up harassment sites is legal at the moment. Whether it should be, and how the law agencies respond to it; again, this is a question above and beyond Wikipedia.

The other items would seem to be dealt with adequately by existing legislation about harassment. Unless, of course, we're saying that the problem is that the Wikipedia users will remain anonymous?

Is it the case, I wonder, that what we're seeing here is a microcosm of the issues affecting the internet as a whole? If so, I don't know that we have to eat that elephant all at once. People are increasingly going anonymous online because of the criminals online; on the other hand, the establishment are increasingly extending real-world policing of speech (etc) onto the web.

But the evil of anonymous admins, effectively unaccountable, is obvious to most people who have experienced their acts. There are probably various possible solutions.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[roger_pearse]

I'm suddenly struck that this entire discussion (and thread title) has been using the wrong term: Wikipedia admins are not anonymous, they are pseudonymous. This makes an enormous difference

I don't see how there is any practical difference, for the non-insider user? What is he supposed to do with the information?

Remember the point here is that the admins are effectively unaccountable; because the internal processes do not work for ordinary people (sorry: I know Sir Guy of Gisborne protests that they work *sometimes*), and it is impossible to apply external sanctions because of the anonymity, even if the admin is only using one account.

... if they were anonymous (whenever acting in an admin capacity at least), you'd get things like "you have been blocked by Unspecified Wikipedia Admin" and "this ban discussion has been closed by Unspecified Wikipedia Admin". See the difference?!

Yes, I do. But I'm not sure it helps.

Surely it does no real good knowing "you have been banned by admin user Zoidberg2389", other than to people who know how to play the Wikipedia insiders game? The ordinary contributor can do nothing with this information. To him, I think that there is no practical difference between the two messages. Indeed a real name would be preferable -- less impersonal.

Remember that usually these actions are inflicted with maximum brutality and insult (which itself is really foolish and will one day cost Wikipedia a lot of money in damages for "hurt feelings", I suspect; whyever isn't this sort of thing done *kindly*?). This by itself discourages the ordinary contributor from doing much more than walk away.

Good people come, remember, to edit, not to fight, and certainly not to master a Byzantine law code, capriciously enforced by anonymous (to them) individuals. The people for whom such a difference matters are probably the people whom no project wants. Perhaps?

All the best,

Roger Pearse
(Apologies for typos; the editor just stops responding as I type).

[EricBarbour]

I, for one, am happy that Rd232 supports pseudonymity for paid editors.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Real name and country of residence for everyone (very lightly policed, think facebook -- try to make it part of the culture, and explicitly treat unnamed people as second class citizens). All administrative candidates disclose real name, age and educational background publicly, provide scanned ID privately to foundation for confirmation (and require same retroactively for all existing admins).

How much of the real name, though? Someone named "John Smith" from the United States is going to be invisible enough to make all sorts of edits that you commonly describe as problems with current anonymous editors, without having to worry about being identified. Like I said though, even if it were just my name I would still have little to no desire to edit anything contentious, if I felt comfortable editing anything at all.

[DanMurphy]

Real name and country of residence for everyone (very lightly policed, think facebook -- try to make it part of the culture, and explicitly treat unnamed people as second class citizens). All administrative candidates disclose real name, age and educational background publicly, provide scanned ID privately to foundation for confirmation (and require same retroactively for all existing admins).

How much of the real name, though? Someone named "John Smith" from the United States is going to be invisible enough to make all sorts of edits that you commonly describe as problems with current anonymous editors, without having to worry about being identified. Like I said though, even if it were just my name I would still have little to no desire to edit anything contentious, if I felt comfortable editing anything at all.

Start with John Smith of the USA. Create a culture where it's seen as acceptable to ask people questions about their background and location, and a little dodgy to refuse to address things. An imperfect system is not an argument against making no improvements at all. Y'all are addicted to your secrecy. For most wikipedians, it makes them feel important, like they're on a secret mission. It usually just enables bad and incompetent behavior.

[rd232]

I'm suddenly struck that this entire discussion (and thread title) has been using the wrong term: Wikipedia admins are not anonymous, they are pseudonymous. This makes an enormous difference

I don't see how there is any practical difference, for the non-insider user? What is he supposed to do with the information?

If he's been wronged, he can appeal a whole lot more meaningfully, especially if he's competent enough to look at X's track record (contributions history and such). But even if he isn't competent enough, making some form of appeal against X creates information that allows others to look at the track record and consider what's going on. (Actually even if he doesn't appeal, there's a reviewable track record.) In addition, it also provides some opportunity for reputational risk, both internally and externally: people can and do care about the reputation of their pseudonyms. In an actually anonymous system, none of this would be possible.

[rd232]

I, for one, am happy that Rd232 supports pseudonymity for paid editors.

I didn't say that.( Quoting what I actually said just above your post seems a waste of time, since you evidently didn't read it the first time.)

[rd232]

Start with John Smith of the USA. Create a culture where it's seen as acceptable to ask people questions about their background and location, and a little dodgy to refuse to address things. An imperfect system is not an argument against making no improvements at all. Y'all are addicted to your secrecy. For most wikipedians, it makes them feel important, like they're on a secret mission. It usually just enables bad and incompetent behavior.

Bullcrap - the secrecy doesn't make Wikipedians feel important, contributing to a top-ten website does. But I'm getting that you don't understand even quite basic things about Wikipedia.

Real question: what is the point in asking questions about identity that you can't verify? All it can do is give you a false sense of security. The cleverest sockpuppet creators create fake names and a tiny bit of fake history to go with it: "look, I'm all honest about who I am", not blabla99 but JonathanFDoeIII, from Wichita, Kansas, class of '84. As long they avoid making disprovable claims about knowledge, this fake information is completely irrelevant, it just provides a false sense of security to others. So if you go on a sufficiently successful campaign to make everyone declare themselves as JonathanFDoeIII instead of blabla99, how does that make any difference to the price of tea in China? It's all a bit

1. Get everyone to declare unverified real names (reliable verification is hard)
2. ???
3. Wikipedia is fixed

[DanMurphy]

Start with John Smith of the USA. Create a culture where it's seen as acceptable to ask people questions about their background and location, and a little dodgy to refuse to address things. An imperfect system is not an argument against making no improvements at all. Y'all are addicted to your secrecy. For most wikipedians, it makes them feel important, like they're on a secret mission. It usually just enables bad and incompetent behavior.

Bullcrap - the secrecy doesn't make Wikipedians feel important, contributing to a top-ten website does. But I'm getting that you don't understand even quite basic things about Wikipedia.

Real question: what is the point in asking questions about identity that you can't verify? All it can do is give you a false sense of security. The cleverest sockpuppet creators create fake names and a tiny bit of fake history to go with it: "look, I'm all honest about who I am", not blabla99 but JonathanFDoeIII, from Wichita, Kansas, class of '84. As long they avoid making disprovable claims about knowledge, this fake information is completely irrelevant, it just provides a false sense of security to others. So if you go on a sufficiently successful campaign to make everyone declare themselves as JonathanFDoeIII instead of blabla99, how does that make any difference to the price of tea in China? It's all a bit

1. Get everyone to declare unverified real names (reliable verification is hard)
2. ???
3. Wikipedia is fixed

Look "Rd232": What is your real name, you educational background, and your professional experience? Mine is pretty easy to ascertain (but will be happy to provide a brief rundown here if necessary). I'm not even interested in trying to address your tedious tautologies if you won't make that simple step anymore. The cloak and dagger nonsense at Wikipedia was a big portion of what drove me off as well. So, how bout it?

[The Devil's Advocate]

Start with John Smith of the USA. Create a culture where it's seen as acceptable to ask people questions about their background and location, and a little dodgy to refuse to address things. An imperfect system is not an argument against making no improvements at all. Y'all are addicted to your secrecy. For most wikipedians, it makes them feel important, like they're on a secret mission. It usually just enables bad and incompetent behavior.

In other words, you want to make sure people feel the pressure to reveal as much personal information about themselves as possible and treat a desire for privacy as a cause for suspicion about someone's motives a la 1984. Think you pretty much summed up why I would leave Wikipedia immediately upon such a change. For me it has nothing to do with secrecy. While I would love to feel like I could trust random people on the Internet with everything about me, my experience has been that personal information is a weapon in the hands of people who want to intimidate and harass their opponents, or just for petty one-upsmanship. Say someone went to a community college, while the other person went to some Ivy League university. The subject could have nothing to do with either of their studies and community college could have all the facts, but Ivy League repeatedly brings up that person's low education and the facts become quite irrelevant to gullible observers.

[Kelly Martin]

Real question: what is the point in asking questions about identity that you can't verify? All it can do is give you a false sense of security. The cleverest sockpuppet creators create fake names and a tiny bit of fake history to go with it: "look, I'm all honest about who I am", not blabla99 but JonathanFDoeIII, from Wichita, Kansas, class of '84. As long they avoid making disprovable claims about knowledge, this fake information is completely irrelevant, it just provides a false sense of security to others.

People are going to create false identities anyway. This is the point I made earlier, that you refused to acknowledge. The problem is not that there is sockpuppetry; the problem is that there is a culture of secrecy. Dan made the key point earlier: if Wikipedia had a culture in which concealing personal information was viewed as dodgy, people's behavior would improve. Yes, some people will concoct false identities, but you'd be surprised how hard it is to create and maintain a coherent false identity; certainly it would be harder in such a culture than it is in Wikipedia's current culture, which considers asking about someone's personal background, identity, competency, etc. to be "uncivil".