>From the blog: http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/05/17/identity-necessary-for-democratic-pol ity/
Thought you might find this fun. --Larry Recently I have been thinking a lot about how to construct a "virtual assembly." This has led to <http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council_Rules_of_Procedure> a set of rules (an <http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council_Rules_of_Procedure/Amen dment_1> amended/expanded version is <http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council_Resolution_0001> under consideration), similar to Robert's Rules. Since I am a philosopher and most recently (in 2005) taught philosophy of law, I naturally think of the jurisprudence of our endeavor. So the following occurred to me. Identity =df. the set of facts, including a real name, associated with a person Polity =df. a state or other organized community with a government Here's a little argument about online communities: 1. If it is not necessary, in a given system, to confirm a person's identity, the person may vote multiple times. (Postulate/observation) 2. If, in a system, the identities of persons engaged in the democratic process of discussion need not be known, persons among them may create the appearance of a groundswell of support for a view, when it is only one (or a very small number) of people who advocate that view. (Postulate/observation) 3. For voting and the democratic process of discussion to be fair, each person's vote, and voice, must count for just one. (Postulate/definition of "fairness.") 4. Thus, given observations (1) and (2), a system that does not take cognizance of identities is inherently unfair. 5. For a system to be truly democratic, it must be fair. (Definition of "democratic.") 6. Therefore, a system that does not take cognizance of identities cannot be truly democratic. Here's another argument about online communities: 1. If the identity of someone who breaks a rule is unknown, it is impossible to punish the person effectively. (Observation; the person may continue to break rules under other identities.) 2. Rules cannot be enforced without effective punishment. (From the definition of "enforcement.") 3. Thus knowing identities is necessary for the enforcement of rules. 4. Polities are defined by their rules. (From the definition of "polity.") 5. There is in fact no rule, where a rule cannot be enforced. (Legal principle.) 6. Thus knowing identities is necessary for the very existence of rules. 7. Therefore, polities cannot exist unless identities are known. Therefore, on either argument, knowing identities is necessary for a democratic polity. That's the philosophical argument for using real names and against anonymity (and pseudonymity of the sort where even the organizers don't know a participant's identity). The above arguments contain a philosophical explanation for Wikipedia's governance problems. Wikipedia is not really a polity because its rules cannot be enforced effectively; and its rules cannot be enforced effectively, precisely because it is always possible for people to create a new account and thus a new "identity" - a problem called <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet> sockpuppetry. And it isn't really democratic because the possibility of sockpuppetry (multiple identities) also allows people to vote multiple times and to amplify single voices into multiple ones - which is inherently unfair. I submit that many Web 2.0 theorists, are philosophically confused about these points, or they would like to pretend that the problem they identity would just go away. I also submit that it is a huge misnomer to describe Web 2.0 projects as the "democratization" of the Web. It is the <http://www.google.com/search?q=anarchization> anarchization of the Web. The Citizendium is the democratization of the Web - and about time.
_______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
