Privacy Concerns: Why I would never edit Citizendium

[Harebrained]

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a great idea that Citizendium verifies its users' identity. However, my problem is that Citizendium insists on _publishing_ this identity.

This poses serious privacy risks in my opinion. When editing Citizendium a user leaves behind a huge trail of information - the topics he is interested in, the exact time of every single edit, his location, what spelling mistakes he makes, etc. All this information is irreversably stored on the internet for all eternity.

Anyone, and I mean _anyone_ can view all that information simply by typing my name into google. We don't even know how that information might be abused 20 years from now - do I really want to risk exposing myself to profiling by insurance companies for instance?

This is why I _never_ use my real name the internet, how ever trivial the contribution may be. I do not want a prospective  employer to be able to google my name and find out that I have a deep interest in the topics of Marxism and BDSM. I do not want my boss to be able to go on the internet and think "ah, he has been editing Citizendium at 2:13 am last night...".   

I don't understand why Citizendum does not allow users to publish under a pseudonym, _after_ verifying their identiy. As long as there is a policy that every person can only have one pseudonym, and that pseudonyms can't be changed, I don't see any disadvantages over the "real name policy". And if you are paranoid, why not use a stricter form ID verification? Ebay for instance uses credit cards and phone numbers to check if the person is real. You could do the same - perhaps allow users who wish to use a pseudonym to make a donation by credit card.

[Robert_W_King]

You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Anyone who contributes here understands and accepts that these are our real personas.

No one is forcing you to sign up as a contributor if you choose not to accept this policy.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

This poses serious privacy risks in my opinion. When editing Citizendium a user leaves behind a huge trail of information - the topics he is interested in, the exact time of every single edit, his location, what spelling mistakes he makes, etc. All this information is irreversably stored on the internet for all eternity.
...
I don't understand why Citizendum does not allow users to publish under a pseudonym, _after_ verifying their identiy. ... I don't see any disadvantages over the "real name policy".

I understand your privacy concerns. (Interjection: these kind of privacy concerns from computerized information systems have been a concern of my master, Prof. Jerry Saltzer, for a long time now - when I took his Information Systems course at MIT in the 1970s (!!), one of the two required reading books for it was one on privacy issues - databases then, we didn't have the network at that point - but alas I can't remember its name, and a bibliography search didn't turn it up.)

However, I think the policy has advantages which outweigh its disadvantages. (Others here may have different takes, this is just my personal one.)

For one, being connected to your meat-identity I think tends to make people more collegial, precisely because your actions are tied in perpetuity to your meat-self. I've participated in several anonymous forums (e.g. Wikipedia, bboards), and several real-identity ones (e.g. the IETF), and do think the latter operate well.

Second, and very importantly for us, with a reliable encyclopaedia being the chief goal of the project, for our readers to know the real-world identities of our authors is important, for a number of reasons. First, readers need to be able to survery a person's entire background and personal history, especially their entire body of work, to be able to form the most accurate judgement of that person's reliability. Second, by putting one's meat-space identity 'on the line' with articles, it serves as an incentive to make sure the content is accurate.

I might also add that scholars are quite used to attaching their real identities to things they publish (which is perhaps why for most contributors here, it's not an issue), and for many of the reasons I listed above.

I think we're all aware that this policy may prevent some people from contributing, and thereby lengthen the time it will take to create content, but my guess is that most people (perhaps unconciously) have weighed the costs and benefits and find the benefits worth the loss-of-privacy cost.

Noel

[Paul Wormer]

Dear Harebrained,

• It is very difficult to avoid having your name on the internet; it takes one letter to your local newspaper about the outrageous state of the lightposts in your community, and you're caught in the web.
• It is very rare to have a unique name, so, dear Harebrained, you may not be on the internet, but your cousin twice removed, who happens to have the same name, could be  notorious. Will your boss believe you when you explain him that it is not you who frequently puts these offensive remarks on blogs?
• There are more embarrassing pastimes that people do at 2.13 am than editing CZ. If your boss takes offense it is time to look for a new boss.
  

[Hayford Peirce]

Dear Harebrained,

I am astonished that any of my colleagues would take even 30 seconds to address the concerns of someone who writes a comment under the nick of "Harebrained". Your choice of that tells us all we need to know about you. You would never fit into CZ and CZ would/will be far better off without your presence.

See how easy it is to write the above to someone who comes in a with a similar name? That's why participating at WP was soooo much fun....

If your nick had been "Concerned Citizen",  you would probably receive a polite reply from me.

If you had signed your real name, probably a dozen people of so would thoughtful address your concerns, not just two or three....

As it is, here's your hat, there's the door.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

I am astonished that any of my colleagues would take even 30 seconds to address the concerns
...
As it is, here's your hat, there's the door.

Now, now, they did have a semi-interesting point, and I was happy to take the time to craft a reply thereto.

Noel

[Hayford Peirce]

I saw so many trolls at WP that I can sniff them out at a thousand paces, hehe.  Or so I think.... It's a fool's errand to get involved with them.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

I saw so many trolls at WP that I can sniff them out at a thousand paces, hehe.  Or so I think....

The thing is that the best trolls are practically indistinguishable from a serious poster. (In fact, some serious posters - e.g. the kind tha won't let something drop - are more 'out there' than some trolls.) That being the case, I think it's a bit rash to say one can be sure something is, or is not, a troll.

It's a fool's errand to get involved with them.

Well, I wasn't going to get in an extended debate with them! More important fish to sautee...

Noel

[Harebrained]

Dear Harebrained,

I am astonished that any of my colleagues would take even 30 seconds to address the concerns of someone who writes a comment under the nick of "Harebrained". Your choice of that tells us all we need to know about you. You would never fit into CZ and CZ would/will be far better off without your presence.

See how easy it is to write the above to someone who comes in a with a similar name? That's why participating at WP was soooo much fun....

If your nick had been "Concerned Citizen",  you would probably receive a polite reply from me.

If you had signed your real name, probably a dozen people of so would thoughtful address your concerns, not just two or three....

As it is, here's your hat, there's the door.

First of all, you criticism is a blatant case of ad hominem. My concern is still valid, you've refused to address it, and I am not the only one out there who has it.

Secondly, you don't seem to understand the concept of ironic nicknames. You probably think that the rapper "Dr Dre" is a surgeon in his spare time, that the 80s band "The Police" has a background in law enforcement, and that the atomic bomb "Litte Boy" was just a harmless warning shot that didn't really destroy Hiroshima at all. Judging me purely by the nick "Harebrained" is a little narrow minded because you don't know anything about its history. 

[Harebrained]

I understand your privacy concerns. (Interjection: these kind of privacy concerns from computerized information systems have been a concern of my master, Prof. Jerry Saltzer, for a long time now - when I took his Information Systems course at MIT in the 1970s (!!), one of the two required reading books for it was one on privacy issues - databases then, we didn't have the network at that point - but alas I can't remember its name, and a bibliography search didn't turn it up.)

However, I think the policy has advantages which outweigh its disadvantages. (Others here may have different takes, this is just my personal one.)

For one, being connected to your meat-identity I think tends to make people more collegial, precisely because your actions are tied in perpetuity to your meat-self. I've participated in several anonymous forums (e.g. Wikipedia, bboards), and several real-identity ones (e.g. the IETF), and do think the latter operate well.

Second, and very importantly for us, with a reliable encyclopaedia being the chief goal of the project, for our readers to know the real-world identities of our authors is important, for a number of reasons. First, readers need to be able to survery a person's entire background and personal history, especially their entire body of work, to be able to form the most accurate judgement of that person's reliability. Second, by putting one's meat-space identity 'on the line' with articles, it serves as an incentive to make sure the content is accurate.

I might also add that scholars are quite used to attaching their real identities to things they publish (which is perhaps why for most contributors here, it's not an issue), and for many of the reasons I listed above.

I think we're all aware that this policy may prevent some people from contributing, and thereby lengthen the time it will take to create content, but my guess is that most people (perhaps unconciously) have weighed the costs and benefits and find the benefits worth the loss-of-privacy cost.

Noel

Thanks for your very informative response. I can see your point. Traditional media such as scientific journals always publish real names for reasons of accountability, so why should Citizendium be any different?

The only difference, in my eyes, is that when you publish an article in journal or magazine, only the final, copy-edited, peer-reviewed version makes it to the public eye. You don't publish the entire process of creating the article, revealing all the drafts, omissions and errors on the way. It is the nature of wikis to expose those things. 

Also, when it comes to controversial or political topics, many traditional media do publish under pseudonyms. Even highly respectable publications like The Economist have columns by pseudonymous authors. I can't imagine that many authors are going to dare editing the Citizendium article on "Gay Liberation" for instance unless they are openly gay.

I think that Citizendium should consider allowing pseudonyms at least for these special cases.

[Harebrained]

• It is very difficult to avoid having your name on the internet; it takes one letter to your local newspaper about the outrageous state of the lightposts in your community, and you're caught in the web.

There is a difference between and odd newspaper article and detailed information about your daily activities.

• It is very rare to have a unique name, so, dear Harebrained, you may not be on the internet, but your cousin twice removed, who happens to have the same name, could be  notorious. Will your boss believe you when you explain him that it is not you who frequently puts these offensive remarks on blogs?

It's not that rare. My surname is a rare Ukrainian name and my first name is Danish. I am unique on the internet. So are many of my friends.

The really scary thing is that your boss/prospective employer does not _need_ to prove it is you. It is enough if they _suspect_ it is you. Googling job applicants has become common practice in HR departments. If they reject you in favour of another applicant because they found some "suspicious" fact about you (or someone else with your name) on the internet, they are never going to admit this of course. In other words, you don't even get a chance to "prove your innocence".

• There are more embarrassing pastimes that people do at 2.13 am than editing CZ. If your boss takes offense it is time to look for a new boss.
  

Some corporate employers can be really shitty when it comes to employee surveillance. Randomised urine sample collection is degrading enough. I'm not going to do them the favour of handing over my private life on a plate.   

[J. Noel Chiappa]

I think that Citizendium should consider allowing pseudonyms at least for these special cases.

Citizendium already allows for pseudonyms in special cases. I dunno if the range they'd allow them for is as wide as you'd like to see, but the exception does already exist.

Noel

[Nick Bagnall]

I guess I don't see the problem here. The great thing about the real names policy is that it discourages exactly the type of activity and behavior you're concerned a prospective employer might disqualify you for. I accidentally submitted (very) rough draft versions for both the articles I've created,* complete with notes to myself to put a transition here, be sure to add a reference there -- you get the picture. But these are innocuous, entirely good faith errors on a wiki -- a type of software that, by its very definition, anticipates and forgives such minor mistakes. That's why it's a collaborative effort. I just see precious few instances where a corporate manager says "look, Harebrained, we'd like to hire you because your credentials are flawless, but right here it shows that you misspelled streptococcus in the article [[Virus]] on December 11, 2010, on 12:23 a.m. Central Standard Time."

*I simply deleted everything but introductory paragraphs. I'm still working on revising them.

[Joe Quick]

Dear Harebrained,

I am astonished that any of my colleagues would take even 30 seconds to address the concerns of someone who writes a comment under the nick of "Harebrained". Your choice of that tells us all we need to know about you. You would never fit into CZ and CZ would/will be far better off without your presence.

See how easy it is to write the above to someone who comes in a with a similar name? That's why participating at WP was soooo much fun....

If your nick had been "Concerned Citizen",  you would probably receive a polite reply from me.

If you had signed your real name, probably a dozen people of so would thoughtful address your concerns, not just two or three....

As it is, here's your hat, there's the door.

First of all, you criticism is a blatant case of ad hominem.

Yes, that was the point, I think.  I do find it a bit ironic, by the way,  that you missed the irony of Hayford's post and then accused him of not understanding irony.

Secondly, you don't seem to understand the concept of ironic nicknames. You probably think that the rapper "Dr Dre" is a surgeon in his spare time, that the 80s band "The Police" has a background in law enforcement, and that the atomic bomb "Litte Boy" was just a harmless warning shot that didn't really destroy Hiroshima at all.

And that's exactly the sort of language that is so easy to spout when one's identity is hidden by an avatar.  This is one of several reasons that Hayford and I and many others so much prefer to interact with people who are willing to put their real-world reputations behind the contributions they make to our community.

Now I don't mean to be mean, but the Citizendium forums are for members only.  Please restrict your posts to the "Non-member discussion" area until you are ready to join the community (with all that that entails).

[Harebrained]

Yes, that was the point, I think.  I do find it a bit ironic, by the way,  that you missed the irony of Hayford's post and then accused him of not understanding irony.

And that's exactly the sort of language that is so easy to spout when one's identity is hidden by an avatar.  This is one of several reasons that Hayford and I and many others so much prefer to interact with people who are willing to put their real-world reputations behind the contributions they make to our community.

In all fairness, Hayford's reply was more rude than ironic, or least it came across as such, since my original post was in no way provocative.

Now I don't mean to be mean, but the Citizendium forums are for members only.  Please restrict your posts to the "Non-member discussion" area until you are ready to join the community (with all that that entails).

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll post it there...