Identity/Talk

This page is for discussing the content of the Identity page.

I would suggest using identity rather than real name as a means of identifying someone on the Wiki. It's the reputation we care about, not who they are in real life. Thoughts? —IDoNotExist

I think real names are good here as a general principle. All internet communities have the concept of 'identity' and most are disconnected from real life. This is a real life community, not a purely virtual one.

• While it's true that this is a geography based internet community, it is still on the internet. Just because you want to be different than the rest of the communities on the internet, there are some basic elements that you cannot control. Anonymous trolls, impersonators, sockpuppets, and innocent people who simply want anonymity. While real names can be encouraged, it should not be "important". —KellyM
  

• I would say that it is important. It's what differentiates the wiki from, say, some random chat room. It should be understood for a new person on the wiki that a real name imparts some of the respect that goes along with that real identity. However, it should also be understood that a real name is not necessary, it's only encouraged because someone who starts out with an anonymous moniker is going to have to spend more time establishing an identity on the wiki. —JoePomidor
  

• I understand that while it seems only natural to give more respect to a real name, as KellyM pointed out elsewhere it really doesn't make any sense. Apparently, if I'd started here with the name "StephenJamieson" I'd have gotten more respect, even though that isn't my name. That's just silly. How about this? All new users are treated with equal respect, unless they give reason otherwise, and all are given more or less ongoing respect depending on the sort of contributor that they become. —CovertProfessor
  

• If you used StephenJamieson and did anything interesting on here, I'd be suspicious when I couldn't find any trace of you online or in any of my extended social networks. Keep in mind that Davis is a small town. And yes, I do know of people on here who are using fake names. —wl
  

• I have no doubt that you could figure out that there was no such person in Davis or the surrounding areas — if there was in fact no such person (there may be someone in the area with that name — if so, Stephen Jamieson, I apologize). But the point is that unless I did something really unusual, you probably wouldn't bother to check; in most cases, you'd just assume it was a real name, even though it could easily be fake. So again, it's a person's behavior that is the real issue, not the name. —CovertProfessor
  

• I belong to no social network in Davis (I know nobody), I am only here because of my girlfriend who goes to UCD. I work from home or in San Francisco. I doubt you could verify that I lived in Davis. —KellyM

• It's true that one could very easily use a false name. All of my arguments revolve around someone using their actual real name. —JoePomidor
  

• Think of it this way: Everyone is judged on the merits of their actions, but the first action we all take is choosing which name we want to be known by here. Use your real name and behave poorly and (SteveOstrowski) you won't get far, or use a complete pseudonym (CovertProfessor) and make good edits and you'll be respected and taken seriously. —JasonAller
  

• The use of the "real name" as your actual real world name doesn't really make sense though, since there is no way to bind that name to who you are in the real world, since the wiki does not rely on any real form of authentication. As I mentioned elsewhere, someone could certainly have picked the name BarackObama, but that doesn't mean that the guy in the White House posts on or reads the Davis Wiki, or that the person using that name might be someone else named BarackObama. In fact, if someone were to choose someone else's real world name, even by accident, they might associate comments or edits with that name that the real person doesn't believe to be true. Even worse, real names are not unique. While there might be only one Barack Obama in the world (I'll bet there are more 4 years from now), there are some names that are probably not unique even within the UCD campus or the town of Davis. So if someone used their real name, their comments might be attributed to someone else entirely. Also, as Covert pointed out previously, someone may have a very good reason for NOT using their real name (I can think of many such reasons.) I definitely don't have a problem with someone using their real name if they choose to do so, but I do agree with Covert that people on the Wiki should be treated based on the merits of their behavior, and not their choice of a name. —IDoNotExist
  

• People are treated based on their merits here, though? I'm not sure what the concern is, specifically..

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2009-02-27 17:45:35   In spite of the fact that I don't use my real name here, I do understand the importance of using my real name. But I have specific reasons for not wanting to do so here, reasons that I'd rather not discuss. And of course, I am not the only one who has reasons for anonymity. For example, a person might fear retaliation of some sort, or be trying to avoid a stalker. Or someone might simply want to dip their toe in the wiki's waters, not fully sure yet if they are ready to commit themselves, something that giving their real name would do. Yet instead of understanding that people might have legitimate reasons for their anonymity, the general attitude here seems to be that the only reason to be anonymous is to flame irresponsibly. Anonymous people are thus treated as second-class citizens, and a few times I've contemplated abandoning the wiki as a consequence (instead, I've just taken a breather and tried again later). It seems to me that a better approach would be to encourage people to use their real names without stigmatizing those who don't, and then to criticize the real culprit: people who are behaving badly, regardless of the name they are using. —CovertProfessor

• I concur for the most part. The one big difference in the way that I see it is that if someone decides to use an anonymous name, they should understand that they will have to work a bit harder to establish a positive reputation on the wiki. There are definitely people who have done so, and who make lots of valuable contributions, but it's also true that the majority of anonymous accounts seem to be used in a negative capacity. This is not to say that there's any indication one way or the other that a new, anonymous account is going to be used in a malicious way. The main point that I'm working towards is that one's reputation on the wiki is based solely on their identity (since everything else is so easily changed), and thus the amount of effort required to establish a good name on the wiki will increase for those who do not wish to tie their identity here to the one they already have in the physical world. —JoePomidor
  

2009-02-27 19:38:02   I am fine using my real name on the Wiki, but I do censor myself sometimes as a consequence. There are some things I may know but won't write since I know that every edit I make is literally tagged with my name. Granted, in criminal matters it doesn't really matter what username you choose since you can be traced by your IP address if someone is determined enough to figure out your identity. But I don't think people are worried about this so much as being 'googled' by their bosses or family and having their name come up with a bunch of random edits that may or may not reflect the persona they try to project in the real world. —MaryLieth

If you ever have something really valuable that you want to post on the wiki but don't want to because you fear someone will trace you via IP address, contact me off-wiki and I can walk you through steps to be completely anonymous as far as technology is concerned, even under subpoena. —wl

2009-02-27 19:45:56   Mary: IP addresses are not, in most cases, suitable for use as a unique identifier for an individual. (This is why we *think*, but can't be sure, that multiple postings from the same IP are the work of sockpuppets.) In general, an IP address can change over time, can be used (or even shared simultaneously) by multiple machines, and aren't in any way bound to a specific user, since there may be more than one person using that machine. —IDoNotExist

• I'd also like to point out that you can manually reset your IP by simply unplugging your modem and plugging it back in. Also, you can "borrow" an IP from one of the many unsecured routers in an area or even the free internet (instaconnect, cafes). I also have an EVDO card, I have an unlimited amount of IPs, it takes me 5 seconds to get one. I can also use my phone as a modem, free IPs there. There are also privacy proxies/systems (Tor), where you can easily borrow another IP. Basing wiki identity, either saying someone is the same person because they came from the same IP, or someone ISN'T someone simply because they have a different IP, is ridiculous. —KellyM
  

• Congratulations, you have both dwarfed me with all of your astounding IP address knowledge whilst completely missing the intent and spirit of my comment. The internet isn't anonymous, whether you use your birth name or not. —MaryLieth
  

• Sorry, I just didn't want you to think that even in criminal matters an IP is so traceable. You would have to have some FBI level techniques and resources to identify someone behind a privacy system like Tor... I don't even know if they have done so, but I assume anything is possible. I wasn't aiming my comment at you specifically, I was just adding info to IDNE's comment. —KellyM

2009-02-27 20:01:03   This is a custom, not a rule. Of course, there are exceptions. Of course, we can't actually enforce it (and we've never tried to)! Don't you think it's valuable, as a general principle, to have people using their real personas on the wiki? I certainly do! —PhilipNeustrom

• I agree that it is valuable as a general principle. But I also think there are different types of enforcement. There is actually kicking people off who don't sign up with a real name (or a real-sounding name), and then there is the sort of enforcement that comes with the way people are treated. There's the cheery "Welcome to the Wiki" and "Please Consider the Importance of Using Your Real Name" that we greet people with. Consider this: you've made one or two edits to the wiki, and already someone is telling you you've done something wrong. Hmm. And I've definitely felt some chilly responses from some of the regular editors, including you, Philip, although perhaps you all don't like me for other reasons. :-) —CovertProfessor
  

• Phillip: Suppose, for example, that Barack Obama, an eager young Freshman at UCD, has their first meal outside of the dorms at Bob's Trout and Footware Emporium (widely known in Davis has having the best trout and shoes anywhere in town.) Barack goes there, hates the trout, gets food poisoning, and the shoes don't even fit him! Not too happy with his experience, Barack posts on the ["BobsTroutAndFootwareEmporium"] page describing his miserable experience. A few years later, Barack needs a job. Thanks to Great Depression 2: The Revenge of Herbert Hoover, most businesses in Davis have either gone under, or are now owned by Bob's Trout and Footware Emporium. (Bob's Trout and Footware Emporium has been amazingly successful, despite the tough economy, having recently acquired both Walmart and Microsoft, and is now the top stock in the S&P 1 index (it was a REALLY bad few years for the economy.) To make sure that potential new hire Barack will be a good employee, Bob does a quick google search, and finds that Barack once posted about the terrible trout eating and shoe fitting experience that he had at Bob's Trout and Footware Emporium. Bob bans Barack from employment at his firm, and Barack is forced to sell his textbooks to buy leftover trout. As you can see, if Barack thinks about the potential consequences of posting something that at *some* point in the future, *someone* in a position of power over them may disagree with, he may decide to censor what he writes. This reduces the value of the Wiki, since some people won't feel that they can be honest in their opinions. This is not an insignificant issue, since the Wiki is searched and recorded in many locations, and since even deleted comments still exist through version control. Anonymity preserves free speech, and protects the poster from how someone might judge their words even far into the future. (Maybe Barack might want to run for President some day, but doesn't want political opponents to be able to use his opinion of trout against him in a future Presidential race where the bailout of the trout based economy is a major political issue.) In a sense, this is the same issue that arises in voting - if votes are not anonymous, they can be sold, or they someone may feel pressured to vote a certain way by their employer or someone else with power over them. An edit or comment on the Wiki is like a vote for the direction of the consensus opinion of the Wiki community on a certain topic. —IDoNotExist

I understand and value anonymity on the Internet. However, the wiki is different for lots of reasons. Could you imagine a cohesive functional Davis Wiki where everyone was anonymous? I think it'd certainly be a lot different. I think with a local community like this we have a desire to be non-anonymous — we get value out of it. So when enough people are open about who they are it seems unusual when someone isn't. It isn't a negative, it's just kinda the way it is — and anyone is free to be anonymous. Even if we didn't use real names here there'd be instances where newcomers would be questioned about their intentions in certain circumstances.

The wiki is complete public. Posting is an act of publishing. The net, by and large, is public. There are tremendous positives and negatives involved in this medium. The issues you raise exist across the entire net and aren't at all exclusive to the wiki.

Also, your mention of Barack Obama is an interesting one that I'd like to explore but it'd be majorly off topic. (Namely, he openly admits to having smoked pot and used coke in the past. This would have been unheard of 30 years ago, but times change certain things. I suspect, rather than being enslaved by our comments on internet forums in 30 years we will, in fact, just adapt.)

2009-02-27 20:48:29   I agree with Philip, it's a custom and not a rule. It has value for some people, for others it doesn't, I wouldn't say it is even generally valuable. It is only valuable to those whose goals align with the benefits of using their real name, and that is only if they know other people in the community and be recognized for some reason. If real name usage is promoted as a custom, and not an "important" custom (as if you are somehow doing something wrong if you do not comply). Everyone thus far agrees that it isn't a big deal since everyone is "treated based on their merits." —KellyM