Re: [Wikimedia-l] Identified users

[John Erling Blad]

>
> Are you familiar with Twitter and Facebook's use of blue checkboxes for
> "verified" accounts? Are you discussing something similar to that?


It could visually be similar, but I'm mostly interesting in similar
functionality. It would be similar in that it would only be some users that
would have an identified (verified) account. It would be different in that
the users themselves would be able to do the necessary actions to make
their accounts identified (verified).

Sure. A relatively easy option for "identifying" users, which has been
> discussed previously, is requiring the use of a credit card or a phone
> number in order to edit. These types of proposals have not been popular.


Yes, there are several systems we could use, but I would rather only use
systems that allow highly trustworthy authentication.

Proof of control over a specific account on Twitter or Facebook can be used
as a less trustworthy authentication, that is proof of authorization to use
an account, but that won't imply identification.

The three point are not about identification, but about identifiers and how
to use them. Nice ideas, but outside the scope of my question. Tagging of
roles is also outside the scope of my question.





On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:17 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> John Erling Blad wrote:
> >In some cases it would be a lot easier and/or better if it was possible to
> >identify and not just authenticate an user. This could include such things
> >as turning on real name for identified users, or limiting elevated rights
> >to them, thereby avoiding renomination of banned users.
>
> Are you familiar with Twitter and Facebook's use of blue checkboxes for
> "verified" accounts? Are you discussing something similar to that?
>
> >In a lot of countries it is now possible to get access to systems with
> >highly trustworthy identification. This is at least possible in several
> >European countries, and I bet it will be quite common in the coming years.
>
> Sure. A relatively easy option for "identifying" users, which has been
> discussed previously, is requiring the use of a credit card or a phone
> number in order to edit. These types of proposals have not been popular.
>
> There's also ,
> which has a somewhat interesting implementation and execution history.
>
> For users who are well-known public figures, we have OTRS or Twitter or
> Facebook, where people can send an e-mail or make a post to
> cross-reference their accounts/identities.
>
> >Some pros;
> >- reclaiming user accounts would be somewhat easier
> >- real names could be used (no impersonation)
> >- user verification of various public departments
> >- proofs of identity for copyright claims
>
> I've said this previously elsewhere, but I think the focus should be on:
>
> * supporting case-insensitive user names, so that "Brian" and "BRIAN" are
>   the same when logging in;
> * supporting display name configuration, so that user "__bradley__" can be
>   referred to as such in page histories and elsewhere; and
> * supporting self-renames, so that it doesn't require another user to
>   change your username, which is just crazy.
>
> I see a lot more to gain from these features than I do from focusing on
> identification.
>
> There have also been thoughts around affiliations and groups and better
> supporting those within MediaWiki. Currently, people often have a personal
> wiki account and an "official" wiki account, but managing the two can be
> difficult and tedious. Instead, you could have a way for users to join,
> for example, the group "Wikimedia Deutschland" and tag their
> contributions as being part of that group, instead of having "User:Herman"
> and "User:Herman (WMDE)" wiki accounts. GitHub does this pretty well.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Identified users

[MZMcBride]

John Erling Blad wrote:
>In some cases it would be a lot easier and/or better if it was possible to
>identify and not just authenticate an user. This could include such things
>as turning on real name for identified users, or limiting elevated rights
>to them, thereby avoiding renomination of banned users.

Are you familiar with Twitter and Facebook's use of blue checkboxes for
"verified" accounts? Are you discussing something similar to that?

>In a lot of countries it is now possible to get access to systems with
>highly trustworthy identification. This is at least possible in several
>European countries, and I bet it will be quite common in the coming years.

Sure. A relatively easy option for "identifying" users, which has been
discussed previously, is requiring the use of a credit card or a phone
number in order to edit. These types of proposals have not been popular.

There's also ,
which has a somewhat interesting implementation and execution history.

For users who are well-known public figures, we have OTRS or Twitter or
Facebook, where people can send an e-mail or make a post to
cross-reference their accounts/identities.

>Some pros;
>- reclaiming user accounts would be somewhat easier
>- real names could be used (no impersonation)
>- user verification of various public departments
>- proofs of identity for copyright claims

I've said this previously elsewhere, but I think the focus should be on:

* supporting case-insensitive user names, so that "Brian" and "BRIAN" are
  the same when logging in;
* supporting display name configuration, so that user "__bradley__" can be
  referred to as such in page histories and elsewhere; and
* supporting self-renames, so that it doesn't require another user to
  change your username, which is just crazy.

I see a lot more to gain from these features than I do from focusing on
identification.

There have also been thoughts around affiliations and groups and better
supporting those within MediaWiki. Currently, people often have a personal
wiki account and an "official" wiki account, but managing the two can be
difficult and tedious. Instead, you could have a way for users to join,
for example, the group "Wikimedia Deutschland" and tag their
contributions as being part of that group, instead of having "User:Herman"
and "User:Herman (WMDE)" wiki accounts. GitHub does this pretty well.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Identified users

[petrohs]

Buen día

Puede ser que mi inglés no sea claro y por ello no habré entendido. 
Pero, no veo el punto de solicitar el nombre real para identificar a
quien edita en Wikipedia.

Creo que la privacidad y el respeto al anonimato es parte fundamental
del proyecto. A mi se me ocurren muchos mas temas en contra que en pro,
seguramente porque soy ''conspiranoico''; en muchos países se puede
poner en riesgo la integridad física de las personas a tener un nombre
real con sus ediciones.

Pero nuevamente repito, igual y soy yo que no he entendido correctamente
el punto.

Gracias.


El 17/09/17 a las 17:46, John Erling Blad escribió:
> In some cases it would be a lot easier and/or better if it was possible to
> identify and not just authenticate an user. This could include such things
> as turning on real name for identified users, or limiting elevated rights
> to them, thereby avoiding renomination of banned users.
>
> In a lot of countries it is now possible to get access to systems with
> highly trustworthy identification. This is at least possible in several
> European countries, and I bet it will be quite common in the coming years.
>
> If some users are identified and some not, what would be the pros and cons?
> I guess the difference should be visible somehow, but would it be necessary
> to show who is identified everywhere? It could perhaps be interesting to
> show the persons real names, but that would not be necessary? I can't see
> that identification at the system should imply public disclosure of the
> same information.
>
> Some pros;
> - reclaiming user accounts would be somewhat easier
> - real names could be used (no impersonation)
> - user verification of various public departments
> - proofs of identity for copyright claims
>
> Some cons;
> - non-identified users might feel they are second rate citizens
> - easier to stalk users with real names ((trans)gender problem?)

-- 
*petrohs, el compa obrero*
/"Cada cual según sus fuerzas, cada quien según sus necesidades..."/
[gpg : 15AD 0077 7028
D720 539C D2B0 CEB5 C220 F1B7 1CDB
]


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Identified users

[John Erling Blad]

In some cases it would be a lot easier and/or better if it was possible to
identify and not just authenticate an user. This could include such things
as turning on real name for identified users, or limiting elevated rights
to them, thereby avoiding renomination of banned users.

In a lot of countries it is now possible to get access to systems with
highly trustworthy identification. This is at least possible in several
European countries, and I bet it will be quite common in the coming years.

If some users are identified and some not, what would be the pros and cons?
I guess the difference should be visible somehow, but would it be necessary
to show who is identified everywhere? It could perhaps be interesting to
show the persons real names, but that would not be necessary? I can't see
that identification at the system should imply public disclosure of the
same information.

Some pros;
- reclaiming user accounts would be somewhat easier
- real names could be used (no impersonation)
- user verification of various public departments
- proofs of identity for copyright claims

Some cons;
- non-identified users might feel they are second rate citizens
- easier to stalk users with real names ((trans)gender problem?)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,