I am not sure if that would solve any of the problems that some people have with the current situation. Still the notarized statement (which includes all personal data) would end up with an individual if I understand correctly. It would only add quite a lot of costs...
2011/7/11 Peter Gervai <[email protected]> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 02:28, Robin McCain <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'd say that if you've blocked someone who is a sockpuppet or other > > abuser the burden of validating such a person should be on them, not the > > wiki staff. At least a notary (or other public official) would have to > > look at an identity document - verify its validity as well as see that > > it indeed matches the person in question - then sign a document to that > > effect. This completely removes the wiki staff from the need to access > > the validity of a copy. > > I guess it is nice to offer the blocked people this alternative, > privacy-enhanced method along the old one. I'm sure current poster > would be pleased, and I guess the dutch wikigods could accept that > solution, too. > > -- > byte-byte, > grin > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
