Admins and anonymity

I hope that I will finish with SlimVirgin case in the next few days. From my point of view it is useless to work on it anymore. The only relevant conclusion from this case is that admins shouldn’t be anonymous.

This case, as well as a number of known and not so known cases (I know at least a couple of them from South Slavic Wikipedias), tells us that admins shouldn’t be anonymous. Yes, I completely support Ben Yates’ positon:

I’m going to come out and say that Wikipedia administrators should not be anonymous. Editors, sure. Admins? Absolutely not. Their real names should be listed. Not admins on the Chinese language Wikipedia, of course, or anywhere there’s politcal repression. But elsewhere, the police can protect you from crazy people. My name, phone number and address have been online for 5 years, and (to my disappointment) I’ve yet to attract a stalker.

And it should be Wikimedia-wide policy.

This page will be updated from time to time and it will be changed over time a lot. The main purpose of the page are reasons why admins should not be anonymous. Of course, I will show the opposite arguments, too. However, if projects are not affected by some irregular situation, my position is clear: contributors which want to be anonymous, shouldn’t be admins. There are tools which may be used for having admin-like privileges (excluding blocks and set of privileges related to page protection).


See other Wikimedian needs.

Advertisements

~ by millosh on August 4, 2007.

 
%d bloggers like this: