I think that the cause....in re: "Love Potion #9" (client #9) … is one of the best illustrations and lessons about morality/amorality and transparency, in modern history.

Food for thoughts….

Being anonymous and fake in our “real” every day lives, or as the focal point of our presentation to the real world as a whole on an internet site, (our feaux lives,) most assuredly presupposes that, in the final analysis, we create a zero sum game and a moral void and blackhole by becoming “sock puppets” and fake profiles of ourselves.

Mr. Spitzer would never have gotten into trouble if he was transparent about his real self.
He did what he did because he felt he could do it without anyone knowing it was really him. Sneaking around as a pseudo-person really does not work. Very few of us would do some of the bad things we do, if we are simply forced to act out as our true identities.

This is the reason why journalism is a free, yet strictly open, and transparent business.
Sources may be anonymous, but the writer cannot and should not be a fake or a feaux person without losing all credibility before the world.

Thousands of New York attorneys and judges are spending sleepless nights wondering if they will be “discovered.” At least one man on the client list, along with Mr. Spitzer, is a real life Judge. I will not reveal his name; I will not reveal the name of NewYorkBrad.

However, I hasten to point out that most problems with the internet stem from the above complex and destructive force of being fake and anonymous.

Yes, there are cases when being “under cover” may save us or others from certain harm… albeit, that is a rare event for something like Wikipedia.

Essjay should have taught WP a very important and hard lesson…it did not.

Are you reading this Brad? If any of us truly believe in what we are doing on earth, and have faith we are contributing to the better good, we will always strive to be open; honest and real.

What's striking about the Spitzer story is how much his wife aged as the story broke.

troof!

'Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.'
-- Oscar Wilde, Intentions

In reality, Journalists do so frequently, however. Not that it particularly has much of a bearing on wikipedia- just saying. It's not even necessarily disreputable, if they are putting themselves in physical danger by entering a gang to report about them, for instance.

As you say here though:-

Requesting background. Who is Mr. Spitzer, for starters?

Absurd in real life as Oscar found out quite clearly.

Same excuse for being drunk. Never works out now, does it?



E. Spitzer, Esq.

Former Governor of the U.S. State of New York.

Resigned last week after being exposed as client #9 in a prostitution ring.

More shoes and "socks" to fall.

So many people spend their lives hiding
their true selves. For fear of being
laughed at, or for fear of being beaten,
or for fear of not being loved for oneself,
or for fear of losing one's job... et cetera
et cetera.

Take away the fear, and maybe they can
be themselves. Their true selves - good,
bad, mixed, whatever. As opposed to
how they want people to see them.

Really?


Oscar Wilde was 'living a lie' at times under his real name, as regards his homosexuality etc. Under aliases, he could do what he wanted. Given that context, you can see why he would say that.


But then, I'm a bit monged out today. Am I not understanding what you meant?

Yes, and these cases (somebody being harmed by the authorities in China over some posting) gives Wikipedia all the excuses it needs to continue its practice of anonymous powermongering by admins, in places like the US. "Ooooh, some admin in past times got a phone threat". Ohhh, we're not paid enough for that!

Okay, so quit.

Had it been almost anyone other than Spitzer I would have felt sorry for them when this came out, as I see hypocrisy as the only sin. I would see what Lee says from a different perspective: our actions when we are anonymous are our real selves. It is only the tyranny of society and culture that "keep us in our place". Were this given greater recognition then I think we could all be happier. Does this make sense? I'm a bit drunk.

P.s. Legalise prostitution you silly puritains.

This shows the difference between anonymity and pseudoidentity. If Essjay really wanted to remain "anonymous", then why did he link to his Wikia profile which had his real information? It would be anonymous for him to say "I go by Essjay and prefer not to reveal my real identity". That could have been okay. But he crossed the lines of anonymity and went into pseudoidentity after he said he had all these degrees and tried to win disputes with them, while linking to his real biography. That's not even anonymous because you didn't even need to use a search engine to find his real identity.

"Pseudoidentity" not "pseudonymity". A "pseudonym" is a fake name. This can be a screen name, impersonation, or making up a name, all else could be real. Pseudoidentity is a term I coined to describe an identity that is not real, faking things that matter, e.g. degrees or experience.

The problem is not with Participatory Informative Recources (PIR), but with Pseudo-Identitous References (PIR).

Lacking transparency, we live in fear and ignorance. In my investment business, without full disclosure, we are lost in a swarm of sellers and ignorant speculators. It can be self fulfilling and shocking. Look at Bear Stearns as an example. Something that may not be systemic can surely be perceived as same.

I state that some places and people, (e.g.,China) may, in fact, be an example where being anonymous can be essential to function in public places like WP. Those people will not likely be able to direct a corporate structure in the U.S. That is life. That is why people seek freedom. However, I am stating emphatically that I believe anyone, in a position of authority, including NewYorkBrad, should be of a certain age, and in fact, must reveal their real identities. That is the way our society operates. The rest is non-society or anti-society.

To make that distinction meaningful requires that we agree on an operative definition of what things "matter". Essjay was clearly using his claimed credentials to try to win arguments - it was there plain as day "I would recommend this book to my students so how DARE you say it's not a reliable source blah blah" - Newyorkbrad is not.

It is debatable, but things I consider to "matter" are things that make readers trust the writer, like experience in their field, knowledge of the subject, and degrees (in Essjay's case, the "field" was religion). Although I believe in an ideal participatory wiki resource the editors (and readers) should be able to trust an editor to know whether s/he has knowledge of and expertise in the subject, Wikipedia is not close to an ideal participatory resource.

I think the whole point of accountability is to prevent
people from being their true selves, and instead
pressure them to be what society wants them to be.

This portion of Plato's The Republic is of interest.

Y'know, this might have been a compelling piece if it wasn't from someone who wants NewYorkBrad disbarred for editing Wikipedia.

It boggles my mind that a former admin of Wikipedia would ask such a question while ON THE INTERNET. Are you not familiar with various news sources on the web, Miltopia? I'm not berating, as I'm truly agog with befuddlement by the framing of the question.

While that's technically true...

The law pressures me not to murder, or rape, or steal. If I really want to do these things, then I could make a reasonable argument that my true self is a homicidal rapist thief. So the law is preventing me from being my true self!

It is true that accountability will cause people to refrain from saying things they might otherwise say. But that's a small price to pay for allowing punishment of those who cause harm.

Hardly; you are "One" that has not taken the time to read anything that I have said if the above sentiment is truly what you think. I respect NYB for many of the things he has done, and, in fact, is trying to do, for Wikipedia, although I truly believe he is wasting valuable time in the present context of his role there.

I believe anyone that is a real live officer of a court of competent jurisdiction within the U.S., must always behave in such a manner as to never be perceived as being anything save for 100% transparent in their role as an officer of the court.

He should either behave as other lawyers do, or refrain from ever again allowing himself to be viewed as an officer of any court with in the U.S. while on Wikipedia. If he has clients, they should not be charged for time spent editing on WP. His time at WP is ever increasing and is a matter of public record.

Further, I believe his, or any officer of a real court, role in giving any "legal advice" on WP should end instanter.

Finally, I believe all people acting as officers and administrators of Wikipedia must fully disclose who they are and what credentials they have to act in the current capacity as such.

That is not the same thing as wanting NYB to stop editing.

No evidence has been provided that NYB has ever given legal advice to anyone on wikipedia.

I think he probably means ArbCom itself. WhispersOfWisdom's position is apparently that being a lawyer and Wiki-arbitrator are legally incompatible ("Brad cannot and should not be practicing real live law while playing pretend lawyer at Wikipedia"). Ironically, that sounds much more like legal advice than anything NYB does on ArbCom--commenting on a specific individual's legal (not wiki) rights and obligations.

Or how about this statement: "I further state that if he represents clients, he must fully disclose to them and his supervisors that he is giving legal advice, outside of his regular duties as an officer of any court within the U.S.A.." Seems a little like legal advice about legal advice, but I wouldn't know, since I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on Wikipedia Review.

Anyhow, here are some of WhispersOfWisdom's kind words in re NYB's potential ability to practice law:

• [A wikipedia libel suit]... would not help NYB's legal career. I still think he had better get out of WP, if he ever wants to "make partner."
• Shame on anyone suggesting that arbitrators and feaux attorneys should be allowed to use fake profiles and hide behind masks of false and misleading identities.
• I have said this before, but........people like NYB should get out while he still has a law license.
• Now let this be a lesson for NYB currently headed for Arbcom. I would not want to risk my license for the garbage that happens on the internet.
• Many other pointed comments were in the deleted Brandt NYB thread.

Here he implies that NYB is cheating his client's time. He often makes that accusation (see also "He is either not practicing law, or his clients are being "short-changed" and he will pay one way or the other"). Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't know whether these claims might be libel if false.

Something like 10% of his posts are about NYB. Apparently there's some history between him, NYB, and Isotope23, which I don't quite understand.