Re: Hello directly from Jimbo at Wikipedia

[David Benfell <benfell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:48:29 -0400, Jeffrey F. Bloss wrote:
> >
> > The one thing that's been made clear here is that the nym solution
> > should be implemented apart from Tor.  As someone posted, those who
> > adopt this solution would have to accept the implications.
> 
> The problem is that any negative byproduct of the solution impacts all Tor 
> users. Those who choose to accept it are giving up willingly, and those that 
> do  not have lost the privilege of participating in an interactive way. It's 
> not a choice, it's an ultimatum.

An interesting point.  I'm not sure I buy it.

In order for this to make sense we need to clarify how giving up some
anonymity to post on Wikipedia is worse than sacrificing the anonymity
you had when you enter a user ID and password to move from a bank's
website login screen to your account information.

In both cases, there is information to protect.  Some form of
identification is a reasonable way to protect that information.  The
nym seems to surrender a lot less identification (at least until the
police search your hard drive) than the user ID.

And when you say "[i]t's not a choice, it's an ultimatum," you imply
that everyone who uses Tor does so to "participat[e] in an interactive
way," or that even if, for example, I never intend to edit a Wikipedia
article, I lose a freedom to do so anonymously, and therefore I lose,
even if I don't perceive a loss.

For this to make sense, we need to understand how this is a greater
loss than the many freedoms we surrendered to form civilization.  In
forming civilization, we collectively agreed to abide by laws, all of
which impinge on freedom in some way, and some of which serve to
facilitate co-existence.

The problem Wikipedia faces with vandalism is a problem with some
people who have not agreed to live by ordinary standards of civilized
conduct.  There's a lot of that on the Internet now; it's sometimes
compared to the Wild West.

An imposition of civilization is a solution to that problem.  And
Wikipedia contributors agreeing to use nyms seems a very civilized
solution.  And just as towns of the Wild West selected a sheriff to
enforce law, Wikipedia is asking contributors for some form of
identification, even if it is only a non-anonymous IP address, so that
rules may be enforced against abusers.

We're touching on some fundamental issues here; I'm not saying you're
wrong, but I think your argument needs better development.

> The Chinese dissident was a metaphor more than anything. I'm sure we could wax 
> eternal about "controversial subjects" and "public officials" and such, and 
> how this Joe or that needs anonymity, and we'd come up with a fair list of 
> valid scenarios where anonymity, or the lack of,  could make a major 
> difference in someone's life. I think it's in this minority's interests that 
> any errors should be made on the side of caution. But again, that's just the 
> way I'm wired.

I'd say the Chinese dissident case is a valid one for us to consider.
Even if it isn't so applicable to Wikipedia.

But as I understand it, the nym solution is being developed to satisfy
the Wikipedia folks, but theoretically could be required for other
interactive services as well.  And that certainly *could* be a problem
for our Chinese dissident.

-- 
David Benfell, LCP
benfell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/