Talk:Anonymity

Outline of some reasons for allowing anonymous contributions:

 * History of anonymous posts in discussion forum http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Adiscussion.dreamhost.com+anonymous&btnG=Google+Search

without even requiring registering a username.

FAQ says:

"Why should I register a Username?

By registering a Username, you will be able to edit your profile and preferences. You will get the most out of your time here if you change your profile to suit your individual tastes. There are a lot of options in your profile to make your experience here more enjoyable, so please take a few moments to try the various settings. Also only people with registered Usernames can take advantage of the "New Posts" feature upon each visit."


 * Consistent with fine USA historic tradition of allowing anonymous publishing to allow those not currently with power to openly and honestly express opinions without (or with reduced) fear of retribution.


 * Anonymous FTP is provided (allowed, encouraged)


 * There's no law or DH policy against it.
 * Gigantic hordes of unwashed customers deserve it. "Much thanks to the gigantic hordes of unwashed Happy DreamHost Customers..." -DH wiki home"

Previous Related Comments
Still in http://www.wiki.dreamhost.com/index.php?title=Talk:Webmail : I seem to have initially posted it without being logged in, so it's not attributed to me, but to "4.35.152.146". I've searched Wiki help, but still don't know if I can or should somehow indicate 4.35.152.146 was me. ~Jim

What you've done (by posting in your IP's talk page) is plenty. There isn't any real point of etiquette involved in this. Anonymous posts are as welcome as signed ones. They just tend to be scrutinized more. Thanks for your contributions! Malakhi 17:29, 18 Apr 2005 (PDT)

Previously Deleted (One might say Suppressed) Comments
User:Anonymous From DreamHost

This user is for making anonymous changes.

MediaWiki:Anonymous From DreamHost

Anonymous user(s) of DreamHost

Rene Descartes goes into a bar... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum) Anonymous 19:43, 22 Jan 2006 (PST)

Bartender asks, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes answers, "I think not," and immediately disappears.

User talk:Anonymous From DreamHost

I don't think we want anonymous contributions, because that encourages spam. I suggest this user is deleted. -- Scjessey 12:07, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Seconded. There are a lot of legitimate uses for anonymity, but I fail to see how making changes to a web hosting company's support site is one of them. -- kchrist 12:25, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Lay off. If someone chooses Anonymous for their login name, why care? If they start spamming, they can be dealt with. It's not like their IP address isn't tracked. You want to require everyone to use their real name now? Yeesh. -- Austicke 15:08, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Really. Many Users are already using obvious pseudonyms anyway. --Pseudonymous 20:14, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT)

There is a world of difference between a pseudonym and anonymity. My main objection to this name is that the creator intended it to be used by more than one person. If a username has multiple users, how are we to track who made what contributions? The transparency of the wiki is what makes it so successful, because it is self policing. This username makes that more difficult. -- Scjessey 06:56, 13 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Why do you need to track who makes which changes? I think you're missing the point of wikis. They're successful because anyone can edit them. I thought the login requirement was made simply to foil spammers (mostly robots). I didn't know it was to kill anonymity. Once again, IPs are tracked and spammers can be dealt with, so what does it matter if someone wants to be anonymous or share one login with 20 people? If they're contributing to the wiki and not being disruptive, then that's a benefit! If you want to track every contribution by name and heavily police the wiki, then this project is doomed. -- Austicke 09:52, 13 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Austicke said: "Once again, IPs are tracked and spammers can be dealt with". Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. The wiki software does not report the IP addresses of usernames (at least to my admin level), so if a username is "misused", I can only block the whole username. That means that nobody who uses that name would be able to use it. As an administrator, I must have the ability to distinguish one user from another. Please don't forget, I don't have a problem with a username "Anonymous", I have a problem with people sharing a username. The intention of the creator of this username was to do precisely that. -- Scjessey 10:50, 13 Jun 2005 (PDT)

So block the "whole" username if there's a problem. So nobody sharing it could use it. Maybe that's the price for letting it be "misused" (in your hypothetical worst-case world). Your reasons are insufficient objections for your "problem" with sharing usernames. You don't need to track who made what contributions so precisely. Get a grip and learn to live with less control. --Pseudomonad 17:35, 13 Jun 2005 (PDT)

"Get a grip and learn to live with less control."

I really don't understand why you feel you need to be so abusive. I am not some power-crazed meglomaniac who feels the need to control every facet of this wiki. I am simply a normal human worm baby who values this resource. I have clearly explained why I think the sharing of a username is unwise, yet you erroneously think my real motive is to eradicate free speech, ban abortions, and invade Iraq (or something). I'm a nice guy, really! -- Scjessey 19:44, 13 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Apparently you have a good sense of humor too. --Pseudorandom 14:40, 14 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Anonymous Quotes from Josh's Most Excellent, Entertaining and Funny Newsletters
Out of the mouths of babes does often come cereal. -- Anonymous

"Say something witty and you'll be remembered forever." --Anonymous.

Simon's take on anonymity
I'm a regular (and extensive) contributor to a number of wiki's, including the Wikipedia. Experience has led me to believe that, on the whole, anonymity is not a good thing. It shouldn't be a problem, but unfortunatlely it is. In an attempt to limit the amount of spam and pointless IP blocking, DreamHost made registration required. To try and circumvent this, someone created a username that was supposed to be available to more than one person. Such a name would make it exceedingly difficult for the wiki to police itself, especially with username blocking being unavailable (for reasons as yet undertermined). The discussion that followed this event are already on this page.

As I've previously stated, there is a world of difference between contributing under an anonymous pseudonym, and contributing anonymously. In almost all cases, the latter is designed to conceal the online identity of the contributor because the contribution is unwelcome. It simply isn't in the spirit of a good wiki, and I know that other contributors agree with me. I'm not some self-styled autocrat trying to supress comments, as the anonymous user has suggested. This kind of stupid comment is exactly why anonymous posting isn't a good idea. If you're going to make silly remarks, why not be honest about your identity?

It is well known that contributors with real name usernames, or who reveal their real names on their user pages, are likely to make more useful contributions that those who conceal their identities. Choosing a username of Anonymous could be considered as a clear sign of the intent to do mischief. -- Scjessey 12:06, 29 Jan 2006 (PST)

Not-Simon's take on anonymity
Last I checked, when registering, even an email address is only optional, not required. There is no attempt to connect a username with any particular person, or even with only one person. No real-name is required; no credit card or other real ID is required. There is no law or rule against sharing passwords. Therefore, creating a shared username does not circumvent registration. And frankly, there's little you can do to prevent people from sharing passwords anyway. You do not know how many other usernames are already shared. If you look at the user list, very few usernames can be connected with anyone, and are therefore virtually anonymous from your perspective.

The discussion that followed is only on this page thanks to Google cache. You previously “pre-emptively” deleted the comments even though no harm was done. A harmless comment that was arbitrarily and unilaterally deleted, as you did, is “suppressed.”

You think there is a difference between anonymous and pseudonymous because you ASSume only one person uses each username. You don't know that to be a fact unless you very carefully checked the access logs, which I doubt you've done.

Only one or two people expressed agreement with your position. At least a few disagree, and the vast silent majority simply ignores you. They don't have user pages, and you don't know who they are or if they are only one person (per username). You focused your wrath, and power of suppression, on the “Anonymous” user only because s/he was overt and open about it.

The fact you so easily and casually call comments “stupid” and “silly” IS a good reason for someone to remain anonymous, to avoid personal name-calling and insults. There is no lasting impact of criticism directed at anonymous persons, which is what allows them to comfortably “speak truth to power. “

When you say “useful contributions,” you mean the kind of stuff you like. One person's cute Pink Floyd page is another person's stupid, waste of space, or mischief.

Perhaps some people would rather not have their “real” identity subject to your arbitrary, unilateral (some might say stupid or silly) criticism? Anonymity provides this capability. -- Scjessey2 20:16, 31 Jan 2006 (PST)

Simon's take revisited

 * You have clearly misread what I've been saying. I simply stated that non-anonymous users are statistically more likely to make useful contributions to wikis than anonymous users. This simple fact has been found to be true on the Wikipedia. By useful contribution, I mean articles that are generally of a higher standard. You make a reference to the joke Pink Floyd page - that was created as a humorous addendum to my own user page, after being prompted by another user. The page was created just after the wiki went live, and is hardly ever accessed. If you believe it should be deleted, gather support on its discussion page.


 * I regard the creation of the Scjessey2 username to be a personal insult. I also consider it to be a classic example of why anonymity is often unwelcome. When you are using your anonymity for negative reasons, you are simply proving my point. On the Wikipedia, such an activity would be against Wikipedia policy. No such rules exist here, but I imagine they will in the future.


 * Once again - I have nothing wrong with anonymity. My problem is with the sharing of usernames and passwords. Creating a pseudonym is fine, but deliberately trying to share a username and password is most definitely not fine. What possible reason could there be for it, besides nefarious activity? -- The real Scjessey 06:21, 1 Feb 2006 (PST)

Not-Simon's take revisited
You state a lot of things. You don't back them up.

I am insulted by you summarily deleting others' harmless pages and comments simply because you and one other person dislike the possible intentions, without waiting to see if anything “nefarious” actually happens. Yet you insist someone else must gather support before deleting a silly page you created. You are using a double standard, not that I really give a hoot about your silly page, if you would simply allow others similar latitude.

Could you quote something from Wikipedia that supports your position? The link doesn't do it. In fact the password page does not forbid sharing passwords and clearly expects it. It does point out potential password security impacts, however.

How many of these wikipedia users share passwords?

I suppose you think bugmenot should be banned from the Internet? Just because you don't understand any reasons for it does not constitute a reason to forbid it. Jane Doe 20:53, 1 Feb 2006 (PST)


 * It is obvious to me that I am wasting my time arguing with you. Clearly, you're just going to ignore the rules of etiquette, and even basic good sense. Do whatever you like, and someone else can disagree for a change. -- Scjessey 04:52, 2 Feb 2006 (PST)