Re: [WikiEN-l] Editing anonymously though having an account and other moral dilemmas.
In my opinion, from an ethical standpoint, there is minimal or no difference between editing as Bod NotBod and editing as an IP address. To answer your second question, unless Bod NotBod is your real name using your IP address makes it more likely (not less) that your identity will be traced and discovered. The information the IP address represents is the network location of your computer. Third, the WMF will provide your identifying information (such that it keeps, assuming the data is still retained at the time of the request) in response to a legal order / subpoena. Fourth, it's hard to say without understanding more exactly what kind of threat you are under. Probably I'd do it myself anyway, but that's a purely personal decision. Failing that, you could provide the referencing information to someone else and have them do it (if you'd prefer this method, send me the information and I'll do it myself). Hope that helps. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Editing anonymously though having an account and other moral dilemmas.
On 24 August 2011 23:20, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Is it ever acceptable to purposely edit an article when logged out (ie, as an IP) if one has an account of long standing? Yes. 2. If I did this IP editing, would I have [ complete / little / no ] protection from being traced as the source of the (perfectly sourced) information I place in the article? Depends on your ISP. Would make you more traceable than when logged in. 3. Provided my edits are all perfectly sourced, will the WMF defend my anonymity? (I do know that the WMF has a good track record here). Maybe. Sometimes it will sometimes it won't. In practice even where it wants to it doesn't always have enough measures in place to do so. 4. If you would advise against me pursuing this as you feel I cannot adequately mitigate risks to myself, perhaps you could put yourself in an imagined similar situation: imagine you have a powerful sense that a company is acting unjustly but that company has a hold on you. You know that Wikipedia could reflect some of the injustice (all sourced from WP:RELIABLE) but that you are placing yourself under threat. What would you do to get this information into an article? Obviously Wikipedia is not a campaigning platform. In terms of making yourself hard to trace a fresh account with edits from an internet cafe paid in cash and the like would be harder for lawyers to trace. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Editing anonymously though having an account and other moral dilemmas.
Thank you Nathan and Geni, Nathan I may take you up on your offer. But using a library computer is another option I had been considering. It's gone midnight here now, so I'll sleep on it. Thank you once again, Bodnotbod. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Editing anonymously though having an account and other moral dilemmas.
I think one key question is whether you have already edited this article in such a way that this sockpuppetry might verge into abusive sockpuppetry - i.e. two accounts that appear to support each others arguments/edits being secretly controlled by the same person. If not, or if your only edits to the article so far are along the lines of fixing typos then this could be OK. NPOV is a slightly trickier matter, as you sound somewhat riled up against them. I'd suggest at the very least sleeping on it, rereading what you want to edit and perhaps even starting with a talkpage comment If I add this sentence sourced from this newspaper does that sound neutral? Also I'd suggest rereading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock and notifying Arbcom of your alt account, and remember if you ever run for RFA there is a general expectation that you at least say words to the effect of I also have an Arbcom declared alt account (if you can also say things like It has been inactive for more than x months since I scrambled the password, has made less than a hundred edits and received no blocks or warnings then it is unlikely to upset an RFA ). WSC On 24 August 2011 23:20, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, There's a company operating in the UK that has a large number of controversies attached to it. Because this mail will be publicly viewable/searchable (and for other reasons that may become clearer as you read on) I shan't name them. The article for the company already has a substantive controversy/criticism section. It needs much better referencing. I am able to do this; I have a good source (The Guardian) and I'm sure there are others. I'm good at identifying acceptable and unacceptable sources. The trouble is that this company could have a profound impact on my life and they have shown themselves willing to play hardball with internet critics. One site - which supports a vulnerable section of society - was closed down just today, and it's that which has got me fired up. But frankly, the company scares me. I'm finding it hard to even hint at how they could effect me without giving too much away, so I apologise for being vague. So, my questions are: 1. Is it ever acceptable to purposely edit an article when logged out (ie, as an IP) if one has an account of long standing? 2. If I did this IP editing, would I have [ complete / little / no ] protection from being traced as the source of the (perfectly sourced) information I place in the article? 3. Provided my edits are all perfectly sourced, will the WMF defend my anonymity? (I do know that the WMF has a good track record here). 4. If you would advise against me pursuing this as you feel I cannot adequately mitigate risks to myself, perhaps you could put yourself in an imagined similar situation: imagine you have a powerful sense that a company is acting unjustly but that company has a hold on you. You know that Wikipedia could reflect some of the injustice (all sourced from WP:RELIABLE) but that you are placing yourself under threat. What would you do to get this information into an article? A couple more points: I guess some of you may be thinking well, hang on, you have a Conflict of Interest here, so you should go nowhere near it. It's difficult to argue against that without revealing details that begin to bring my edifice of protection tumbling down. I would liken my situation to someone living on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico who chooses to write about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. [1] I may be personally effected by mistakes/negligence on the part of this company. But I'm not employed by them. My relationship with them is akin to your relationship with the company that provides your water. My relationship with the company is that they provide an infrastructure that I rely on and that they are proving themselves to be increasingly unreliable and opposed to free speech (according to reliable sources). If writing about the oil spill as a Gulf resident would be COI, then mea culpa: I'll take note and back off. I'm interested to hear your views, With high regard for my fellow Wikipedians, Bodnotbod - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Editing anonymously though having an account and other moral dilemmas.
On 25 August 2011 00:31, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Also I'd suggest rereading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock and notifying Arbcom of your alt account, No reason to notify arbcom. If there account is an abusive sock it won't help you and if it isn't arbcom don't need to know and of course arbcom is known to leak. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Editing anonymously though having an account and other moral dilemmas.
On 08/24/11 3:30 PM, Nathan wrote: Fourth, it's hard to say without understanding more exactly what kind of threat you are under. Probably I'd do it myself anyway, but that's a purely personal decision. Failing that, you could provide the referencing information to someone else and have them do it (if you'd prefer this method, send me the information and I'll do it myself). In my opinion this is the key issue. The other questions are about what keeps you within the rules; this one is about judgement. To refer to current events, Gadhafi's opposition in Tripoli would have been morally justified to express their views about him, but only at the risk of becoming very dead. As long as there are others concerned about the situation, but who are less in harm's way, it's just as well to let them carry the torch. Judgement includes being able to back off even when the rules support your position. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
