On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Sylvia Ventura <sylvia.vent...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid > points, specially around privacy standards across countries/continents with > a very different political and cultural makeup. And not something likely to > change unless supremacy over wikipedia is given to one specific entity or > state (nah). And losing our Freedom of Speech is not up for question. > > A coupe of thoughts on the comment <<that internet itself promotes > anonymity>> that might have been the case in the early days, but as more of > our 'real lives' activity migrates online and replaces the physical world; > internet has become the 'repository' of knowledge, but also goods and > services, it's increasingly the place where 'untangle assets' get traded > and human interactions take place > (social/professional/commercial/financial/legal…). As we create our online > trail, so is our personal profile. It's just a matter of time before we > access everything about anyone with a simple email address (Google already > pulls chunks of info from linkedin twitter, quora, etc to feed your G+ ID … > and so does rapportive on email) It's already possible to spot the fake > (ID) from the real. > > More and more you see these "vetting" mechanisms use cross pollination of > personal data (i.e. signing up to Airbnb to book room with your Facebook > account or google account). As far as anonymity is concerned I think we're > beyond the 'point of no return'. This if from a North American perspective > of course, but Europe will soon join us with different levels of > implementation (the trade off is always Access vs Privacy and that's a > though sell), and so will the rest of the planet. This sounds a bit > Orwellian and a bit depressing I agree, and that's why it is SO VERY > important to get Wikipedia and sister projects to thrive and grow and be a > strong space, repository of human knowledge, human history, representing * > all* voices. > Europe is increasingly unlikely to join North America. This is a continent whose most recent actions in relation to privacy law strengthened it /past/ the data protection standard, not reduced that standard. I'm confused as to how the solution to a future that is "a bit Orwellian and a bit depressing" is to embrace it, but make sure that everyone is equally surveiled. > > Sylvia > ----------------------------- > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 02:23:53 +0530 > From: Theo10011 <de10...@gmail.com> > To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects > <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap > Message-ID: > < > cap9+r94miyuwuuqe_6cfk-ucn6xz73cfuzanqzvzwmtd8zg...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > Hi Sylvia > > It seems the crux of your argument is against the nature of the Internet > itself, rather than anything specific to Wikipedia. There is nothing unique > about anonymity on Wikipedia. In fact, it could be argued that internet > itself promotes anonymity - Internet protocol don't require any real user > identification for access, beyond giving a rough idea of someone's access > point, the only information that is there is what a user willingly chooses > to divulge. As the adage goes - On the internet, nobody knows you're a > dog.[1] And in this day and age, a dog can indeed have a FB profile, a > twitter account, gmail, a youtube channel, a tumblr and even a Wikipedia > account (TOS doesn't have anything against dogs....I think). I don't see > what is unique on Wikipedia that promotes pseudonymous or anonymous users > anymore than other places - it would always come down to what someone > chooses to reveal and their own level of personal boundaries. > > Then there is the entire idea about the wisdom of the crowd, which implies > that the individual is irrelevant to a certain extent, nameless at best. It > is the collective that gives the crowd its identity and strength - to that > purpose it is easier to join the crowd, as it is easy to leave. > > There is something also worth mentioning here about American/European > elitism, where coming from places in Middle-east, South-America, and parts > of Asia, associating your political opinion with your real-world identity > can have very real and dire repercussions. In India, for example, two women > were arrested for expressing their opinion on FB at the demise of a > political figure, I believe one of them posted a comment and the other > "liked" it on Facebook.[2] They were both arrested in the middle of the > night by police from a completely different area. And that is probably one > of the tamest example I could think of, when you consider what the > political situation is in the parts of the middle-east. I'm sure I can pull > up horrifying stories about bloggers in Egypt or Iran or elsewhere, who > don't truly share the luxury of free speech. > > Then the second implication, I don't think anonymity alone permits someone > to cross any lines. It would be a facile argument to disprove, that once > anonymity is removed from the equation that you can expect someone to be > more civil. You still don't know anything about the person on the other > end, neither would they about you, besides what you choose to reveal - you > would remain two perfect strangers. Now, implying that associating their > name with that a single comment to you, would be singled out and have > real-world implications, be it work or family - would be another stretch. > All this seems like a case of "telling on someone" as children, usually > their parents and expecting intervention. Online platforms already have > system that resembles this, whether its an admin, or flagging something or > contacting support. Then, most work-places I have known can't censor > someone's personal or political opinion or what they do or say in their own > personal time, impeaching them would be against their civil rights - even > if it is politically incorrect - it would have to be of their own volition > to change. As Voltaire put it - "I do not agree with what you have to say, > but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." (or perhaps it was > Evelyn Beatrice Hall.) > > If such a totalitarian system were ever to be conceived that won't permit > anonymity, I suppose it would get complicated with different nationalities, > especially EU, where handling and sharing someone's personal information > requires far more restrictions, not to mention the oppressive regimes would > have their own "requirements". I suppose someone would have to weigh what > they gain vs what they lose. Sadly, they might lose Freedom of speech and > Privacy, for the chance that someone would be nicer on the internet. > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
