Wikiversity:Community Review/Pseudonymity and external correspondence

How pseudonymity and external correspondence is handled has become an issue lately on Wikiversity.

This is the main page of a community review. By policy:
 * The main page of a community review will:
 * Begin with a brief statement which explains the purpose of the review.
 * Have a list of questions with yes/no answers. Questions can be added as indicated by the statements of the participants.
 * Have statements by individual contributors about the topic, under their own headings, not to exceed 700 words. Threaded and long-form discussions should take place on the talk page. Statements may contain links to other discussions or longer statements on another page.

Questions
(See Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Pseudonymity and external correspondence to discuss the addition of questions to this list.)
 * 1) Should there be a special policy regarding pseudonyms and anonymity regarding Wikimedia participants?
 * 2) Should our IRC channels be logged?

Comment by SB_Johnny
I think the "CR CR" has come along enough to at least begin this discussion, and it's really become the source de jour of wikistrife over the past few weeks. I realize that the privacy policy was only debated and approved fairly recently, but there seem to be perhaps too many loopholes or a lack of clarity for it to work correctly.

As far as the pseudonym issue goes, I think more specific language about Wikimedia contributors might help ease the lack of clarity, though it would also set up some philosophical inconsistencies that some of us might not be happy about. Most (if not all) of the WMF wikis seem to have either explicit or implicit policies suggesting that pseudonymity will be respected (thus representing a social contract of a sort), so as a part of that organization we should probably do the same. The internet is, after all, a big place, so if connecting pseudonyms to real names is necessary for a particular project, it can simply be taken elsewhere.

I think it's important to note that the recent activities that have brought this issue to the fore have gone right through a gray area or loophole of the current privacy policy, which specifically addresses the privacy of "Wikiversity Contributors", and says nothing about Wikimedia contributors in general. While using the real names for the specific and stated purpose of causing stress to the persons in question is obviously improper, the policy as currently written says absolutely nothing about using them as part of a learning project.

Likewise where the policy states that "You are accountable and responsible for what you write about living people", presumably applies to what you write about living people on Wikiversity. Whether that also applies to what people write on other websites (e.g. Wikipedia) -- and how that in turn applies to how a learning project -- is a bit different. For our purposes here, the focus is on what's done on Wikiversity.

As far as external correspondence goes, I'd favor a simple policy regarding relevance. I've often heard it said that "an email is like a post card" (so you should assume anyone can read it), but I've noticed that many Wikimedia contributors tend not to see them that way. IRC correspondence is even more open by its very nature, so at the very least I'd think that content on the public WV channels should be available for posting on the wiki if it has some relevance.

@moulton: your statement is over 850 750 words at this point, please whittle! ;-). (removing all the unnecessary signatures might even do it)

Comment by who?!?
I recommend that we adopt YOYOW here. If I call somebody by their name, they can hold me personally accountable and come after me. —Name Withheld 15:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "I have no sympathy for a Wikimedian who links their own username to their real identity and then tries to game the system by complaining when other people mention their identity." —JWSchmidt


 * This kind of "gaming the system" is an instance of the Double Bind, which we recently introduced in WV:RCA:


 * The Double Bind is one of the tell-tale markers of individuals manifesting Cluster B Personality Disorders.


 * —Moulton 06:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "I think more specific language about Wikimedia contributors might help ease the lack of clarity..." —SBJ
 * Wikimedia contributors can be found on specific WMF-sponsored Wikis, on IRC, on Wikipedia Review, on public WMF mailing lists, on Facebook, on Twitter, in general multi-recipient e-mail, in Skypecasts, in comments posted in the media, and on their own personal blogs. Sometimes Wikimedia contributors use different monikers in these different systems, and they often say more or less the same thing in more than one such venue.  It occurs to me that Wikimedia contributors who employ such multiple channels should not be gaming the system by surreptitiously changing costumes or name-tags as they flitter from one Twitter to the next.  Let them be identified as alternate monikers or pseuds associated with one person's mind, one person's thoughts, one person's voice, and one person's vote.


 * Moulton 14:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @SBJ, regarding the "gray" area of authors who write both inside Wikiversity and outside (either under the same pseud or not), we nonetheless have this language in the existing policy:




 * I read that as saying that authors who write biographical characterizations of living people, whether they write them on Wikiversity, Wikipedia, or anywhere else, can be held personally accountable, responsible, and even liable if they publish demonstrably false and defamatory characterization of identifiable living persons. An interesting case arises when a someone who is not a registered member of Wikiversity writes a biographical characterization elsewhere (e.g. on Wikipedia), which then comes under review here.  If the original author (say, from Wikipedia) then comes here (either under SUL or otherwise) to defend their earlier writings elsewhere, I would argue that local policies on Scholarly Ethics automatically kick in per the Policy here, because they are now locally affirming or repeating their original writings elsewhere in the course of a local review of their outside work.
 * Moulton 18:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wikiversity differs from other WMF projects because it allows original research." —Guido
 * While original research is supposedly forbidden on WP, there is a substantial amount of it nonetheless. I ran into blatant falsehoods on WP that turned out to be original (and utterly bogus) theories of mind crafted by the allied editors of IDCab whilst haphazardly characterizing the beliefs and views of their hapless biographical subjects.  —Moulton 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudonymity and external correspondence
If someone wants to have pseudonymity then they have to take responsibility for concealing their identity. I have no sympathy for a Wikimedian who links their own username to their real identity and then tries to game the system by complaining when other people mention their identity. The simple solution in such cases is for the Wikimedian who wants pseudonymity to start a new user account and not link it to their real identity. Wikimedians who have "outed" themselves and then game the system so as to punish others for using their real name should be ashamed of themselves. There might be two major categories of correspondence that need to be discussed. 1) Correspondence about Wikiversity. I prefer that Wikiversity chat channel logs be public documents. I think it is technically possible to use bots to automatically record and archive the chat logs. The only other type of Wikiversity "correspondence" I remember hearing about is email. I'd be willing to live with a guideline saying that if you use email to discuss Wikiversity then you agree that your email comments about Wikiversity can be posted on Wikiversity. We could encourage all Wikiversity participants to have a user subpage where they routinely post their off-wiki correspondence about Wikiversity. 2) Correspondence that is not related to Wikiversity or its mission. First, I take a broad view of what might be related to the mission of Wikiversity. If someone is studying a topic then there might be good reason to include correspondence about that topic in their Wikiversity editing. The YOYOW approach would work if Wikiversity editors were forced to reveal their real world identity. In my view, the Privacy policy should be used to restrain anyone hiding behind pseudonymity while publishing private information that they have no legal right to publish. I know of no case where such information has been published at Wikiversity, but it makes sense to have in place a mechanism that could deal with such an eventuality. --JWSchmidt 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Update: Based on comments now on this page, it appears that the Ruling Party wants to continue to grant themselves the right to hold secret off-wiki discussions where they can take orders from disruptive invaders like KillerChihuahua and decide which Wikiversity community members to harass and block and which Wikipedia policies to force upon the Wikiversity community. I'd favor a rule saying that all off-wiki "correspondence" about Wikiversity by Custodians must be made public and posted on wiki. In the interest of Truth and Reconciliation, this openness should start with posting of the off-wiki correspondence from 2008 involving SB Johnny and the Wikipedians who vastly disrupted Wikiversity by harassing Moulton and his collaborators and by calling for the deletion of Wikiversity learning projects. It is a great embarrassment to the educational mission of Wikimedia that the people who so vastly disrupted Wikiversity in 2008 are still here and still forcing their disruptive ways upon this community. I don't see how this disruption of Wikiversity is going to end until the community is able to openly research and study the history of Wikiversity and publish a complete description of the actions of the Custodians who think it is a "good idea" to collaborate with policy-violating Wikipedians to disrupt Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 14:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Real names
full original comment. Summary and new comment:
 * For academic work, cite names as published. For wikis as sources, this is the user name. Additional names may be given where it improves the work, but verification is always with the user name.
 * The recent claims about using "real names," as if this were academically necessary, are cover for the use of real names to harass and intimidate, trolling. Every connection of a real name with a user name, where the real name is, on the face, anonymous, creates potential to aid in stalking, real-life harassment, and does harm to the wikis where it's offensive to the user.
 * In research for WMF process, real names are sometimes required; custom is to hide real names when used, after necessity passes. Usage of real names should always be subject to strict necessity; if necessity is not shown, they should be redacted and revision deleted immediately. It is better to err on the side of quick deletion, because the damage of leaving it open can be irreversible, but deletion is reversible.

IRC logging

 * Any official Wikiversity IRC channel should be automatically logged to a Wikiversity page, and, if needed, the license revised to allow this. The channel should feature a notice of this logging. A policy regarding redaction of the WV log page should be developed, promptly. Official WV IRC channels should kick, promptly, any user who violates WV policy on the channel, subject to appeal on-wiki if the user is not banned. Banned users should be allowed to use the IRC channel unless specifically banned from there as a separate decision by channel ops. Such ban decisions should be openly declared on-wiki, and may be discussed there.
 * There should be a Custodian request channel that is not open to debate and general discussion, and that should be enforced. Generally, custodian requests should be filed on WV:RCA, and then the RCA IRC channel may be pointed to the request.
 * @Moulton: See Talk#Diversions --Abd 14:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by darklama
I see no need for a "special policy". I think the policy applies broadly to any work hosted at Wikiversity. I cannot see how this policy can be interpreted to only apply to "Wikiversity contributors". Under Privacy policy: "This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a wiki editor". Emphasis mine. A search for "Wikiversity contributors" also finds nothing in the privacy policy.

I think IRC channels should not be logged. IRC channels cannot be reliably logged. Many factors can keep a log from being complete and thus context lost. Additionally irc logs can easily be forged which also makes them unreliable. -- dark lama  19:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Guido den Broeder
Wikiversity differs from other WMF projects because it allows original research. In my opinion, the norm at Wikiversity should therefore be that users make their real name known - if not by using it as their user name, then by revealing it on their user page. As a corollary, mentioning another WV user's real name should never be considered improper. When discussing off-WV events, on the other hand, users should generally be mentioned by user name only. The second question is easy: no, chats should not be logged. Note that publishing a chat log is already disallowed by the license. Guido den Broeder 22:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Bill Clinton
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-February/063822.html is a remark by a long time highly regarded Wikimedia activist and contributor and organizer. He rightly points out that WikiMedia policy on identifying community members qualifies as "security theatre" because it is so easy to fake an identification. Just above this comment is a comment by someone who suggests that all Wikiversity contributors be known by their "real" name. Wikimedia foundation does not have the funds to do that right for even very special positions within Wikimedia projects. Further it is contrary to Wikimedia policy for Wikimedia to assist in identifying the "real" names for public outing. So how is this supposed to be enforced? Indeed, how are any of the various pseudonymity proposals supposed to be enforced? I am Bill Clinton. Care to prove otherwise? (I have carefully established several false identities ; I'm sure a bribe or two would uncover one or more of those.) Want me to prove it? That goes against Wikimedia policy. Someone wants to start calling me "George Bush" to out me? Once the cat is out of the bag, what good does it do to fight about it? That only brings attention to the situation. (Oh, the shame of being George Bush!) So you want to block/ban/ridicule/delete someone who outs others? Works for 13 year olds. Not so much for competent adults with the time, money and motivation to not play by your rules. Lastly, I did not think I had to spoon feed the obvious. I apologize for any inconvenience my overestimation of the participants may have caused. - WAS 4.250 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC) (additional commentary -- WAS 4.250 18:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

Comment by Mu301

 * 1) irc: agree with darklama that there is difficulty in insuring the integrity of logs (even netsplits could corrupt a transcript) Also agree with Guido den Broeder that we would need to insure that everyone participating agrees to release their words under a compatible license - it is not enough for someone to simply state that quoting them is ok. Another issue is civility both in terms of the content posted on wiki and also the very act of posting it. IMHO chat logs have recently been used in way that has the consequence of dividing the community and ramping up the drama. Exceptions should be made for online meetings where everyone participating agrees beforehand that a log will be published. (However, that could occur in a separate channel created just for that purpose.) I'd say that overall I somewhat support the idea of not allowing logs to be posted on wiki, with the exception of transcripts of scheduled meetings. --mikeu talk 17:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) irc: agree with darklama that there is difficulty in insuring the integrity of logs (even netsplits could corrupt a transcript) Also agree with Guido den Broeder that we would need to insure that everyone participating agrees to release their words under a compatible license - it is not enough for someone to simply state that quoting them is ok. Another issue is civility both in terms of the content posted on wiki and also the very act of posting it. IMHO chat logs have recently been used in way that has the consequence of dividing the community and ramping up the drama. Exceptions should be made for online meetings where everyone participating agrees beforehand that a log will be published. (However, that could occur in a separate channel created just for that purpose.) I'd say that overall I somewhat support the idea of not allowing logs to be posted on wiki, with the exception of transcripts of scheduled meetings. --mikeu talk 17:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by TeleComNasSprVen
1. External correspondence should not be taken as license to mention the real name of a Wikiversity contributor or any other user across the Wikimedia projects, and in particular any speculation about the user should be discouraged. However, there have been many major exceptions to this rule as well in the past. These include policies such as improper COI editing, in which a user must state explicitly on his/her userpage the affiliation the user has to a certain organisation and/or the intent of the user to participate in Wikiversity. This information is important in determining the proper conduct and policies for which the user in question must abide by. Another example would be a well-repudiated professor mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources and journals, which for the sake of transparency can be subject to logging here on the site. Richard Dawkins is a major British who has published many satirical books against religion and is an outspoken proponent of atheism. It is possible that he once visited the English Wikipedia as the RichardDawkins account (<- gasp, outing!) The last exception would be that the user himself or herself has agreed to personally identify directly to the Wikimedia Foundation, in which case his/her name is logged at the Identification noticeboard. But it is also rare (but not never) that the user is referred to by his/her real name, and more often times referred to by the pseudonym in which he or she appears on the Wikimedia Foundation’s projects. Whether this is habit or courtesy (the latter more likely) I do not know, but it is expected of most people who interact with the particular user to behave this way.

2. IRC logs should only be published on Wikiversity if they are believed to be something beneficial to the rest of the community. Otherwise, logging for the sake of logging is just plain pointless, or an attempt to prove a point. Join and quit messages should be redacted during the publication process whenever possible, because they might reveal private sensitive data such as IP addresses. Unless the user gave explicit permission to record the addresses for the report as well, it is best practice to adhere to this rule, though there is no really hard and fast rule for recording IRC logs on Wikiversity. If we deem it inappropriate to log IRC channels on Wikiversity, then this should be addressed by amending the appropriate policy pages, including the privacy policy and the guidelines for proper conduct whilst using FreeNode.

TeleComNasSprVen 01:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment on process by Geoffery ( Geof ) Bard
These are IMHO two separate topics which may overlap in some instances. Unless the intent is to adjudicate the area of overlap and not other, i would request the CR be split. It is possible that the intent is to discuss the issues solely to the extent they overlap, but if so that should be stated explicitly in the opening statement. The opening statement was quite sparse and it would be wise to amplify it rather than rely on the development of the thread to determine the scope and specificity of the the issue. Due to these ambiguities, i have declined at this time to read or consider the thread, having only read the Comment by TeleComNasSprVen, which seems to confirm that my concerns are warranted. Nothing herein should be construed as a disparagement of the intent of the originator's intent nor of the importance of a correct and proper determination of these issues. Geofferybard 21:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)