Contributors are largely pseudonymous. They are definitely not anonymous. Even a seemingly-random IPv6 address is a--temporary--pseudonym for an editor. But editors there rely on reputation, and reputation is gained and maintained through a stable pseudonymous account.
However, a small fraction of Wikipedians reveal their true identities right on their user page. Many of them have had real life encounters and represent the WMF in various gatherings and meetings. Others simply don't see a need for a veil of secrecy.
For pseudonymous Wikipedians, there is the spectre of "unsolicited paid editing" or UPE, which is a facet of the "conflict of interest" (COI) controversy. For example, if I worked for example.com, I would be strongly encouraged to disclose that affiliation on my user page, and also strongly discouraged from directly editing articles about example.com itself.
But, Wikipedians are not required to "out" themselves entirely. So how to declare all COIs without outing yourself? There's a definite tension there that simply can't be resolved, so long as editors are accustomed to a veil of pseudonymity.
Everything every editor does on Wikipedia is essentially public record. Every comment you make, every edit to articles, every action taken against your account, it's logged and published to the world. So, it should not be unexpected when pseudonymity is broken and the veil is pierced. PII is supposed to remain private and closely guarded, but everyone should know, everything leaks eventually. And users should always keep that in mind when taking on activities on a public website.
There's a story that's been posted on here a few times about someone working at a PR firm who figured out how to leverage networks of sock puppets to control narratives on Wikipedia. It's presented as fiction but also heavily hinted to be based on a real experience. Anyone remember it?
This is so incredibly gross. I’d rather they just pull out of India completely if this was the alternative. What are all those funds we are donating to the Wikipedia war chest for?
>While Wikipedia volunteers are primarily focused on producing content for the encyclopedia, the WMF is a major fundraising organization, bringing in $165 million from 13 million donations during the 2021–22 fiscal year
>Jim Heaphy, a 70-year-old Wikipedia editor and administrator who lives in Grass Valley, California, told me that he opposed any messaging that suggested the WMF was running out of money. “Wikipedia is under threat. But it is not under threat financially,” Heaphy said in an email. “The Wikimedia Foundation is rolling in cash.” Heaphy told me he sees the main threats to Wikipedia as coming from authoritarian regimes, ideologues, spammers, and vandals.
Full title: Wikipedia agrees to share details with Delhi High Court about users who made edits to page on ANI
I found this previous HN discussion helpful for context - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41921723
Will this have a chilling effect on contributors?
Here's an interesting thing about Wikipedia.
Contributors are largely pseudonymous. They are definitely not anonymous. Even a seemingly-random IPv6 address is a--temporary--pseudonym for an editor. But editors there rely on reputation, and reputation is gained and maintained through a stable pseudonymous account.
However, a small fraction of Wikipedians reveal their true identities right on their user page. Many of them have had real life encounters and represent the WMF in various gatherings and meetings. Others simply don't see a need for a veil of secrecy.
For pseudonymous Wikipedians, there is the spectre of "unsolicited paid editing" or UPE, which is a facet of the "conflict of interest" (COI) controversy. For example, if I worked for example.com, I would be strongly encouraged to disclose that affiliation on my user page, and also strongly discouraged from directly editing articles about example.com itself.
But, Wikipedians are not required to "out" themselves entirely. So how to declare all COIs without outing yourself? There's a definite tension there that simply can't be resolved, so long as editors are accustomed to a veil of pseudonymity.
Everything every editor does on Wikipedia is essentially public record. Every comment you make, every edit to articles, every action taken against your account, it's logged and published to the world. So, it should not be unexpected when pseudonymity is broken and the veil is pierced. PII is supposed to remain private and closely guarded, but everyone should know, everything leaks eventually. And users should always keep that in mind when taking on activities on a public website.
There's a story that's been posted on here a few times about someone working at a PR firm who figured out how to leverage networks of sock puppets to control narratives on Wikipedia. It's presented as fiction but also heavily hinted to be based on a real experience. Anyone remember it?
Americans learning that if you want to do business in a country you have to follow that country's laws is always funny.
Maybe so, but something is not necessarily right even if it is "the law"
Country with no regard for privacy.
Who is doing business?
Wikimedia Foundation inc.
How?
By providing a service and taking donations there.
This is so incredibly gross. I’d rather they just pull out of India completely if this was the alternative. What are all those funds we are donating to the Wikipedia war chest for?
https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/wikipedia-wikimedia-fou...
>While Wikipedia volunteers are primarily focused on producing content for the encyclopedia, the WMF is a major fundraising organization, bringing in $165 million from 13 million donations during the 2021–22 fiscal year
>Jim Heaphy, a 70-year-old Wikipedia editor and administrator who lives in Grass Valley, California, told me that he opposed any messaging that suggested the WMF was running out of money. “Wikipedia is under threat. But it is not under threat financially,” Heaphy said in an email. “The Wikimedia Foundation is rolling in cash.” Heaphy told me he sees the main threats to Wikipedia as coming from authoritarian regimes, ideologues, spammers, and vandals.
Disgusting