Wiki Community/Organizational accounts

Organizational accounts are communal accounts created for members of an organization to use to make edits to that organization's page. Examples include UrbanBodyStaff, HealthEducationPromotion, and WillowsManagement. We have been seeing more and more of these accounts as of late. While it has been my feeling that these accounts are a bad thing, to the best of my knowledge, we've never discussed the issue in great detail nor have we discussed how to deal with it.

I believe that the problems with such accounts are numerous. Here are just a few of the problems I've thought of.

• Such accounts lack individual accountability. Individuals should have their own accounts so that each individual editor is responsible for their own edits.
  

• Such accounts go against the general principles enumerated at the Importance of using your RealName.
  

• Such accounts discourage editors from editing pages that have nothing to do with their organization. We want editors to be part of our editing community, not just curators of their organization's page.
  

• Such accounts may cause some editors to give unnecessary deference to the organization when it comes to contentious edits. This may undermine the general principle of community ownership of the wiki.

As of right now, I am in favor of adopting a policy that states that these accounts should be disallowed. However, I recognize that we haven't had any major problems with such accounts and such a measure may be drastic and alienating. I also recognize that perhaps the problems I've listed aren't really problems.

Does anyone have any other thoughts on the matter? Responses to my thoughts? —WilliamLewis

Organizational/Role Accounts:

• UrbanBodyStaff
  

• HealthEducationPromotion
  

• WillowsManagement
  

• Assistantmanager - Arguably not a communal account, but merely a role account.
  

• CommunityMediation
  

• ATOWNmgmnt
  

• ChautauquaManagement
  

• And others?

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2009-04-02 10:27:29   I like the idea of a "role" account such as this. The problem, of course, is that there is no way to tell whether or not the account is actually related to the business it purports to be related to. For example, if I created an account called BobsShoeAndTroutEmporiumManagement, you might think that I was the manager of Bob's shoe and trout emporium, even if I am not. Or maybe you once worked for Bob and had the password to that account, but Bob fired you after that late night trout snorting incident that he caught on camera. You then might use the account to hurt Bob's business.

One possibility would be to create accounts that can only edit a SPECIFIC page, and to give those accounts a management name. But of course, there's still the problem of not knowing who is actually using the account. There might also be liability for the wiki if someone got a management only account that they shouldn't have, and used it to damage a business. (You should ask the legal experts on the wiki if that is actually an issue.) —IDoNotExist

2009-04-02 12:48:26   Maybe Wiki Spot should provide free personal accounts, but start charging for corporate accounts. —BrentLaabs

2009-04-02 18:00:47   In the same way that not using a real name to post under, or at least putting together a fleshed out personal page, is like wearing a ski mask to a social gathering; using a "Role" account is like wearing a uniform. The problem with uniforms is that anybody can put one on and impersonate the owner of a business, city official, or other role. I'd rather that the wiki didn't have to focus on validating either names or roles and could just be a place for people to come and build a helpful resource for the whole community. —JasonAller

2009-04-03 08:28:10   I think it should be be generally discouraged, but I have no big problem with it. We've seen a few cases where people get in trouble at their place of work for responding or commenting on their business pages, and in that situation, at least a "Role" account shelters them a little and gives them a chance to respond from the proper role. There's similar positive aspects of it, and I definitely think, for example, the HealthEducationPromotion account is A-ok. Some level of anonymity for some of that stuff is more than understandable.

The apartment complex manager accounts I'm more iffy about, mostly because some of them cross-edit due to sharing owners/management, and I think down the road it could potentially become a problem if they sit to nurse their own pages. Overall, I think the best thing to do is simply ask that the people behind a role account recognize the differences between the two types of accounts. We can ask that they also join and contribute on a more personal level, but I think that most people will realize how quick/easy it is to make an account (since they just did it...) and if they want to contribute at some point beyond their work priorities, they will. Otherwise, unless it starts to become a problem, I don't think we have yet need to try to preemptively weed'em out. —EdWins

2009-04-03 18:05:06   I like the idea us allowing, even encouraging these accounts. Of course real names are good, but when a business owner is speaking on behalf of the business, I want to be able to associate the user account with the business. Sometimes owners comment on reviews on their pages, and you have to interpret from the context or other posts that it is in fact the owner, but it's not always clear. In these cases, it is effectively the "business" talking anyway. I'm reading the reviews and comments to decide whether to give the business my custom, not whether to make friends with the owner.

If you want the actual name of the owner, isn't this a matter of public record? We can get it if we need it, but 99% of the time, knowing that the owner is posting in the interest of the business by using the business name just things more clear. It's not the same as hiding behind some other anonymous username because the interests of the owner are the same as the interests of the business, so there's no ambiguity. Sure, it's possible to fake it or for rogue employees to misrepresent the business, but don't we have other ways to deal with this? It's possible to do that now, but I'm not aware of this being a problem. We could just reserve the username of the business for the owner, and if the owner disputes ownership of the account, we can figure out how to resolve it, otherwise assume that the business name account is the owner. —MatthewPearson

2009-04-21 08:31:30   WikiAdmin. I rest my case. —JasonAller