Stalkers and people who contact you in real life

[zeidoros]

The main problem with "real names policy" is the stalkers and people that might try in real life to contact you regarding one's contributions.

I simply voted "delete" with my real name account on a Wikipedia AfD of and less than an hour later I got a phone call from an angry person who asked me about that vote. It turned out that he was the person whose article was being deleted.

This guy got my phone from the who-is entry of my site, but even without that, I guess he could find my phone and address from a regular phone book.

He then started telling me about his life from a classical paranoid POV, telling me how there's a conspiracy against him, that many people are out there who want him, because he investigated some drug-trafficking gangs back when he was a journalist in Australia. Then, he told me that a certain Wikipedian (who nominated the article for deletion) is evil and has something against him!

Since then, I use an alias for issues involving living people. :-)

Anyway, this guy, while having some mental problems, was apparently not violent, but I guess there could be instances in the future, in which a delusional guy would try to take revenge on an editor... and it's better to be safe than sorry.

[christian liem]

That is unpleasant enough, but I think you should consider yourself lucky that nothing harmful actually happened to you. If Citizendium is going to insist on complete identification on user pages, I'm going to have to say goodbye. My own safety is far too important for me. I'm not even going to give my personal information to any Citizendium admin, unless I know him/her personally on good terms, and probably not even then.

[Nat Krause]

For some time, I made a point on Wikipedia of encouraging people to use their real names. I even made a template to simultaneously welcome people to the project and suggest they change their usernames. However, it was in light of experiences like zeidoros' (which I have been fortunate enough to avoid myself) that I stopped doing this altogether. That, and the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation seems to have no interest at all in providing legal advice, etc. to people who are being harrassed in real life as a result of their edits on Wikipedia (although, I can't say that I pushed this issue very much at WMF). Wikipedia is simply not a safe place to reveal your real name. As for whether Citizendium is ... I hope it will be, but the main thing making it different from Wikipedia is simply that it will probably attract a lot fewer vandals and headcases.

[christian liem]

Providing legal advice is all good and fine, but my interest is to prevent the thing from happening in the first place. If your identity is stolen, you might be able to sue the thief, but there's no guarantee at all that you'll succeed. Plus all the hassle and lost time, energy, money. No thanks.

[Nat Krause]

Naturally, I'd rather not stalked or otherwise molested than have to sue somebody. However, what I'm talking about it mitigating damage, and whether or not this can result in what one would consider to be an acceptable level of exposure. This is a decision that each potential Citizendian is going to have to make for her- or himself.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

I don't see putting merely your name online as that large of a risk.  My name is rather uncommon (because it's a spelling variation and my dad has no brothers, it might be unique in the US), but if you don't publish much else, you should be fine.  I'd generally use some sort of an office phone and PO box for website registration personally, and I'd like to think that creeps and weirdos are relatively rare enough.  I'll say simply that I'm willing to eat the dog food here and put my real name up, as are a lot of other people.

The benefits of the real-name-rule are their ability to establish a community based on people instead of handles, and to try to keep vandals and crazies away from the site.  There's a risk associated with it, this is true, but I (and a lot of other people, by the looks of it) think it's a risk that's worth the benefits.

[Mike3]

I don't see putting merely your name online as that large of a risk.  My name is rather uncommon (because it's a spelling variation and my dad has no brothers, it might be unique in the US), but if you don't publish much else, you should be fine.  I'd generally use some sort of an office phone and PO box for website registration personally, and I'd like to think that creeps and weirdos are relatively rare enough.  I'll say simply that I'm willing to eat the dog food here and put my real name up, as are a lot of other people.

The benefits of the real-name-rule are their ability to establish a community based on people instead of handles, and to try to keep vandals and crazies away from the site.  There's a risk associated with it, this is true, but I (and a lot of other people, by the looks of it) think it's a risk that's worth the benefits.

Is it worth risking one's real-world welfare for an Internet encyclopedia? I know that if one was working on a print encyclopedia like Britannica for example one would have to use one's real name, but it's in a more controlled environment. The Citizendium Encyclopedia is in a more uncontrolled environment, namely the Internet. This was one of my biggest problems with Citizendium, the second is my concern that the "expert guidance" of the project could turn into an "expert tyranny" where the experts insist they cannot be wrong (ie. refuse to take suggestions from non-experts no matter how valid the points) and introduce bias towards certain "scientific" views and not give other views a chance like is needed for NPOV.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

I don't see putting merely your name online as that large of a risk.  My name is rather uncommon (because it's a spelling variation and my dad has no brothers, it might be unique in the US), but if you don't publish much else, you should be fine.  I'd generally use some sort of an office phone and PO box for website registration personally, and I'd like to think that creeps and weirdos are relatively rare enough.  I'll say simply that I'm willing to eat the dog food here and put my real name up, as are a lot of other people.

The benefits of the real-name-rule are their ability to establish a community based on people instead of handles, and to try to keep vandals and crazies away from the site.  There's a risk associated with it, this is true, but I (and a lot of other people, by the looks of it) think it's a risk that's worth the benefits.

Is it worth risking one's real-world welfare for an Internet encyclopedia? I know that if one was working on a print encyclopedia like Britannica for example one would have to use one's real name, but it's in a more controlled environment. The Citizendium Encyclopedia is in a more uncontrolled environment, namely the Internet.

I personally don't see a large real-world risk.  If you really think it's a large enough risk then don't contribute.  If you have more than about 3 anecdotes suggesting that a real name without other information is dangerous on the internet, then that's worth looking into, especially if you have a proposed workaround.  Additionally, I question the idea that a print encyclopedia is any different from a non-printed one.  It's still an identical issue:  you putting your name on your views/contribution/knowledge and being questioned for them.

the second is my concern that the "expert guidance" of the project could turn into an "expert tyranny" where the experts insist they cannot be wrong (ie. refuse to take suggestions from non-experts no matter how valid the points)

That's a concern best stated in the relevant threads on those topics in their relevant forums and doesn't relate to the real names policy at all.  My personal experience on the wiki over the last 2.5 months has not matched up with your concerns.  If you want to continue with that point (and it's a valid concern), please do so on the relevant boards.

..."expert tyranny" where the experts introduce bias towards certain "scientific" views and not give other views a chance like is needed for NPOV.

Again, I haven't seen anything to that effect to date, and there are other boards for that conversation.

[christian liem]

I'm registering with my real name, but that's all the personal information I'm going to give to Citizendium. There are probably thousands out there with my name, so it's not a problem. But no address, telephone number, credit card number (!), social security number, date of birth, etc.

Scenario: someone really hates you. He comes to Citizendium and find your personal information. He uses that information (identity theft) to write anti-semitic things and send these to publishers. The police get wind of this and they investigate you. They come to your house, arrest you in front of your wife and children, and take you away for interrogation. Eventually, you are proven to be innocent and the person who spread this lie was arrested, but damage has already been done for you and your family.

Far flung? Yes
Impossible? No
What's the chance of this happening? Less than 0.001 percent
Would I submit myself to that chance? No

[Mike3]

I personally don't see a large real-world risk.  If you really think it's a large enough risk then don't contribute.  If you have more than about 3 anecdotes suggesting that a real name without other information is dangerous on the internet, then that's worth looking into, especially if you have a proposed workaround.  Additionally, I question the idea that a print encyclopedia is any different from a non-printed one.  It's still an identical issue:  you putting your name on your views/contribution/knowledge and being questioned for them.

I know. I don't know if I will contribute that much here for two reasons: 1. I'd rather play things safe and not give out my name, etc. just yet, and 2. I'm afraid this thing will evolve into a super-elitist system. Some, including the founder of this project, have criticized Wikipedia for having some sort of anti-elitism (ie. disparaging of "elite"), well I'm afraid this thing will get too much pro-elitism (the other flavor of the problem). Although some pro-elitism may be intrinsic to having expert editors guide the thing, there is such a thing as too much. I like Wikipedia's opennness and will probably work there most of the time if I want to contribute to an online encyclopedia project. After all these two can cross over and work together, and it seems ol' Larry thinks so too. Citizendium though may still be valuable for reading when I need accurate, expert-checked information on something. Contribution to Wikipedia would let me develop the stuff in a more open environment, then it could be shipped over here to Citizendium and tweaked/modified by the experts into something more perfect.

Yeah I know this is "off-topic" but your mention of not contributing just gave me an itch to say this

[christian liem]

The standard response from CZ people is: if you think it's a large enough risk then don't contribute. I will contribute here as long as I don't have to give up personal information. And I will always warn other people against giving identity thieves something to steal.

[Mike3]

The standard response from CZ people is: if you think it's a large enough risk then don't contribute. I will contribute here as long as I don't have to give up personal information. And I will always warn other people against giving identity thieves something to steal.

Yep. I'll probably watch the Citizendium though even if not contribute. Should the "real-world responsibility" theory on wikip... WTF?! It's Citizendium!!!... include real-world, real-life risks?

[Jesse Weinstein]

Treat contributing to Citizendium the same as you would treat writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper.  In either case, you affix your name, and sufficient information to allow the newspaper to check that you are who you say you are.  You do this because you stand behind what you are writing, and want to take responsibility for it.  Being on the Internet doens't change this -- it's still a matter of taking responsibility for what you write, or not.

As for the possibility of someone impersonating you, based on information you make available on CZ...  I'm sorry, but, for nearly anyone, there's plenty of information available to impersonate them without help from anything at CZ.

Hope this helps.

[Mike3]

Treat contributing to Citizendium the same as you would treat writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper.  In either case, you affix your name, and sufficient information to allow the newspaper to check that you are who you say you are.  You do this because you stand behind what you are writing, and want to take responsibility for it.  Being on the Internet doens't change this -- it's still a matter of taking responsibility for what you write, or not.

As for the possibility of someone impersonating you, based on information you make available on CZ...  I'm sorry, but, for nearly anyone, there's plenty of information available to impersonate them without help from anything at CZ.

Hope this helps.

But is "taking responsibility" intended to include "taking the risk that something may happen to you in real life"? Also, it is possible to "take responsibility" even on Wikipedia with it's anonymity?

[Felltrim]

It's going to be hard to get a neutral balance on some controversial articles, if real names are obligatory.  I can see many problems with the real name policy, and will post some of them separately.

Example scenario (very common on Wikipedia):

A person edits an article such as [[abortion]], [[vivisection]], [[pedophilia]], or such, to add factual information. or a person in a religious locale edits the [[homosexuality]] or [[intelligent design]] article.

For example purposes only, suppose some editor considers it worth noting that in some cases pedophilia has not been shown (or has been contested) to cause emotional harm, or notes that in other cultures young people have sex with adults without apparent harm. Or whatever. Something emotive and controversial -- but factually notable from at least some cited research -- that can stir up the blood in some readers. Are we likely to get any real neutrality on controversial items if editors feel unsafe editing in unpopular but factual information. Will I want some anonymous person emailing or communicating with my workplace, family and professional body that I'm "promoting pedophilia"? Or an email to my church peers that I edit on [[BDSM]] and added information X to that article?

Another example:   

I've edited on several controversial articles on Wikipedia. My experience is that even just seeking neutrality, trying to explain that both sides must have fair presentation will once every few months get someone who is emotional and unable to see outside their own viewpoint, telling me that because I'm insisting on this I "must" be one of "them", or I'm damaging society, or how would I like my children to read it, or whatever.

Do I want my real name visible in an edit log, when I'm working on controversial articles? No way. I'd be doing what others above have said and avoiding it or fading.

I don't need some crazy paranoiac convinced that because I wouldn't let him say his viewpoint, I'm the son of satan or in a conspiracy of some kind, so to speak. 

(Especially if it's obligatory that he can look up who I am with a few clicks, and find I'm female, live 80 miles from him, have written these 20 papers, and work at Such-and-such university department of arts, and here's my photo.)

This is a very likely consequence on many articles.

Examples only - ignore them if they don't work for you. The point is what matters. Neutrality in too many cases will rest upon the sense of freedom to edit without having to look over ones shoulder for repercussions.

I do have a suggestion to get round it, but I'll post a separate post for that.