Anonymity is necessary

[ziliath]

I would like to believe that we live in a perfect world, wherein free speech never leads to retribution, but I know it is not so.

Particularly with the issue of what really happened on 9/11, which is pursued by the 9/11 Truth movement, I have heard of academics being fired because they pointed out some obvious fact or other, or publicly drew a conclusion based on publicly-available data that did not sit well with those in power. I have heard of activists receiving threatening phone calls. Unmarked cars sitting outside homes, tenured academics being put on indefinite leave, FBI showing up at the door. I have heard of one activist who moved overseas to get away from harrassment. This sounds like the USSR or Nazi Germany, but it is happening now in the USA.

The USA is a crossroads. Down one path is some kind of globalist fascism and a police state; down the other is freedom, truth, and above all, justice for whoever did commit the attacks of 9/11 i.e. who are not the people we were told did it -- they are just so many Lee Harvey Oswalds. People who want globalist fascism are targetting people who want the latter.

We can pretend it isn't happening, we can argue illogically that "if it wasn't mentioned on the TV, it didn't happen", we can run from our duties as citizens to defend our democracy, but all this wouldbe foolish.

At a minimum, so that writers of Citizendium articles can speak the truth without fear that their boss will see their name next to article and give them a pink slip, let alone some worse outcome, a mechanism for anonymity should be established, both for the writers and peer-reviewers.

For those of you who have no been exposed to the fact that the official 9/11 story has numerous and massive holes in it, this is no sin, however choosing to dismiss the idea and remain ignorant is. Go to http://video.google.com, and watch the 9/11 documentaries:
* In Plane Site
* 9/11 Eyewitness
* 9/11 Mysteries
* TerrorStorm

and above all, the following academic discussion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

Even besides the 9/11 issue, free speech can lead to retribution from any number of parties, be they totalitarian Muslims, Scientologists, or the like. Anonymity is needed to prevent attacks.

[Profrap]

Hmm.  This seems a very fundamental criticism of CZ's model.

In 99% of cases, I am convinced that the real-names, credentialed model is the way to go, especially given that the WP is already out there and the CZ needs to grow in its own direction.  But there may be some articles/topics, just a very few, which touch on very sensitive historical issues.  Who, for instance, would be the "expert" responsible for articles on the Armenian genocide, extraordinary rendition, or (a much targetted entry on WP for some reason) Transcendental Meditation?

In a few cases such as these, perhaps the editor or author's name should be masked to the public (though known to the central people responsible).  Or, as an alternative, everyone could sign these articles; there is strength in numbers.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

In a few cases such as these, perhaps the editor or author's name should be masked to the public (though known to the central people responsible).  Or, as an alternative, everyone could sign these articles; there is strength in numbers.

It's possible to modify it on the template, but unless you have a higher-up place the template on someone's behalf, someone is gonna have a name on the edit history.  We could easily enough have a throw-away admin account for that purpose, or get someone unrelated to put it up on someone else's behalf.

I don't see this as a major issue.  Since it's NPOV, the 9/11 article should state "the government and most of the mass media say X, and someone else says Y".  Pointing out that a view exists, and the evidence behind it, shouldn't get anyone fired (I'd hope).

[Phil Wardle]

I don't see this as a major issue.  Since it's NPOV, the 9/11 article should state "the government and most of the mass media say X, and someone else says Y".  Pointing out that a view exists, and the evidence behind it, shouldn't get anyone fired (I'd hope).

I mostly agree. By sticking to non POV editing we should disabuse anyone from thinking that someone is "rocking the boat" and thus leading to problems for tenured academics, for example.

I am more worried about personal attacks (either on the net or even in "real" life) from nutters towards people who write under their own name on said nutters' personal hobby horses.

A tough one that.

[Larry Sanger]

I am more worried about personal attacks (either on the net or even in "real" life) from nutters towards people who write under their own name on said nutters' personal hobby horses.

A tough one that.

It is tough; but taking responsibility for your views, and having to defend them, is a necessary concomitant to responsible free speech.  Free speech creates a "free marketplace of ideas" not just because people can put forth assertions as they like, but because other people are free to consider the source of those assertions.

The case posited above doesn't really illustrate the problem well, since all sorts of people are expressing alternative (or "conspiracy") explanations of 9/11 without any adverse effects on their careers.  The more interesting case is where someone from China wants to contribute but doing so under their own name might land them in a prison camp.  Such a person should approach the constabulary for a pseudonym.

[Phil Wardle]

Hell yes, I hadn't thought of the issue of freedom of thought and expression in places like China.

An article on the cultural revolution for instance could mean a death sentence for a Chinese author living at home.

We must really make sure we have an ironclad way of protecting such people, and I do mean ironclad...we don't want any  sort of Chines NSA or some such from other coutries hacking our servers to winkle out any dissident's true identities.

Ew, that makes me shudder.

[David91]

Assuming that a page can be tagged appropriately, I see no reason in principle why an author should be not able to approach the managting editor with a proposal to submit a page anonymously in those cases where publication under a real names policy may provoke personal retaliation. However, I suspect that such a policy would merely transfer the reaction from the author to the identified editorial staff. For example, four animal rights activists in the UK were recently jailed for waging a campaign of terror against a business for breeding animals for experimentation purposes which included digging up a grandmother's grave. When a group is sufficiently determined to prevent publication per se or publication of what is perceived to be a biased view, they will attack the targets whom they can see have power to control the publication process. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt recently published controversial academic material under their own names and have relied on tenure to ride out the storm for their continuing employment. Not everyone else has the courage to publish. The mounting death rate among journalists, academics and activists who investigate and publish material about corruption and other politicallly charged topics demonstrate the risks all too clearly in many countries. Now ask yourselves: as the managing editor of CZ, if I was in the same situation as Pierre Rousselin, the senior editor of the French newspaper Le Figaro, would I accept an anonymous version of an academically inclined article on Islam if I thought that death threats would come my way?

[Phil Wardle]

This  topic is getting a bit worrying.

Having worked for a while as the National Administrator of the Wilderness Society, I copped some pretty heavy flak for a couple of years, including having my phone tapped and a bug placed up a chimney at my home (which meant some spook was actually IN my house). That was when the cold war ended and the CIA and others were looking for new targets, and environmentalist orgainizations were top of the pops for a short while.

And I wasn't even an activist, just an administrator!

[David91]

I have been investigated by private enquiry operatives through surveillance, phone monitoring, pretexting and all the other interesting techniques recently showcased in the HP leak case. It is intended to be intimidating. For CZ, the issue of one of personal responsibility at all levels. You cannot run a neutral, academic publishing outfit with a broad spread of content without upsetting some powerful interest groups who can and will target you. I am surprised that you all did not understand the risks.

[Larry Sanger]

Well, some of us have understood the risks and have been worrying about them since 2000, constantly reminding certain people named Jimbo only to be told the DMCA covers our asses...

[David91]

Please recognise that CZ is not a hosting service for content like Wikipedia. It is going to publish approved content. That absolutely changes the legal implcations of the activity and fundamentally undermines the reliability of any of the advice that may have underpinned the creation of, or informs the continuing operation of, Wikipedia.

[Larry Sanger]

David, you are absolutely right.

I think we ought to get a legal analysis of our situation.  I imagine we might be able to get that pro bono, somehow...and I don't mean to hint that you would do it, because the relevant law is U.S. law, for the most part anyway.

[David91]

Thank you. It is the responsible prerequisite to moving from a private beta stage to public operation.

[MontcoGuy]

My only concern about the real names comes not from the "black helicopter" concerns, but the very real concern of my corporate employer seeing my participation.  Now I am not planning on putting libelous or confidential info on the website, but the firm is incredibly paranoid about their employees participating in message boards, etc..  A number of employees got warnings recently for participating on a board that was set up for employees who lost their jobs in a corporate restructuring.  And no one was even talking trash about the firm.  We are just that way.

I mean if the answer is "stick with Wikipedia" then I guess that's fine, but it would be a shame (for me) if I could not participate.  Unfortunately, a lot of the issues that led you folks to set this up have frustrated me as well.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

My only concern about the real names comes not from the "black helicopter" concerns, but the very real concern of my corporate employer seeing my participation.  Now I am not planning on putting libelous or confidential info on the website, but the firm is incredibly paranoid about their employees participating in message boards, etc..  A number of employees got warnings recently for participating on a board that was set up for employees who lost their jobs in a corporate restructuring.  And no one was even talking trash about the firm.  We are just that way.

I mean if the answer is "stick with Wikipedia" then I guess that's fine, but it would be a shame (for me) if I could not participate.  Unfortunately, a lot of the issues that led you folks to set this up have frustrated me as well.

Well, I think there are two answer to that.  The first is to be pro-active about it, approach your boss and say "Hey, I'm working on CZ, and I'm contributing stuff related to my work field, but nothing remotely confidental or NDA-related.  It could bring us business if/when potential customers see my name (and potentially connect it to my employment here) as a major contributor/editor of articles in our general field."

Alternatively, contribute to WP, then email someone your edits, and have him/her incorporate your edits into the article.