LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A judge declined Thursday to order Arkansas officials to reveal which state computers were used to edit Wikipedia entries about Gov. Mike Beebe, former Gov. Mike Huckabee and another former elected official.

Circuit Judge Marion Humphrey declined "for reasons of security" to order the disclosure of the physical locations of five computers used to edit profiles about the politicians. Two Associated Press employees had sued to get the information. They are considering an appeal.

The reason I collect real-life names of administrators is because someone, somewhere, has to take responsibility for the content on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel claims that the Foundation is immune. A majority of the admins and higher use fake names. OTRS volunteers mostly use fake names too, but that hardly matters because OTRS is a black hole. Everything is catch-22 for the subject of a biography who prefers to not to have a biography. The desire to not have a bio on Wikipedia has to do with the respect that people should show for the right to live a private life. This right is recognized in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), and is also recognized by many state laws in the U.S.

I am only interested in sufficient information to establish an admin's real-world identity. That includes name, location, birthdate or age, and a pic. This information is basic and does not violate privacy. It's on your driver's license, it's on your school records, it's required to travel across international borders, it's on your employment applications, it's on your lease or your mortgage. What I'm doing on hivemind does not violate privacy. I'm simply trying to make an admin's actions on Wikipedia as accountable as that person's actions in every other aspect of their lives.

The reason I'm doing this is because biographies of living people (BLP) on Wikipedia can be extremely privacy-invasive. That's true even you assume that every sentence and every phrase in the bio is completely factual. There is a massive amount of room in a BLP to select, spin and arrange factual material so that it presents a bad impression of that person.

There's also the issue of defamatory information in a BLP, and the issue that if not currently defamatory, the BLP can instantly become defamatory at any point in time because editing is open to anyone.

Then there's the issue that between Wikipedia and Google, the bio will be read by everyone with even a passing interest in the person. The people who read this information are told that Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia."

If all admins on Wikipedia were required to use their real name, or at least all admins who edit any BLPs, then this would help. If BLPs could only be edited by those who use their real names, this would help even more. If there was a review process of a bio, followed by protection of the bio, this too would help. But none of these conditions exist. On top of that, there is no little or no respect for the subject of a BLP who asks that their bio be removed.

By knowing the real-life identities of the editors of a bio, the subject is in a position to send them a cease and desist. If you don't know the identity, then you have to get the IP address from the Foundation, and then go to the Internet Service Provider (ISP). This could take up to two years in the U.S., and maybe a couple thousand dollars for an attorney. Add to that the problem that many editors aren't even located in the U.S., so now you have multiple jurisdictions, and multiple attorneys. I'm not exaggerating — this is what John Seigenthaler was facing with BellSouth before we found the perp in his case. Seigenthaler consulted with his attorneys, and called his buddy who was the head of BellSouth, and he had a pretty good fix on the situation. He already had the IP address from Wikipedia, because the perp edited without a user login. So Seigenthaler had the ear of telephone company execs and Congresspeople, and can afford attorneys, and can write columns that appear in USAToday, and he was amazed that all of this couldn't help him find the perp in the short term. What about people with less influence and fewer resources than Seigenthaler? What are they supposed to do?

Two years and a couple thousand dollars per editor is not realistic. I had no choice but to start hivemind. Initially hivemind was focused entirely on specific editors who had given me a hard time on my bio, which I wanted removed since October 2005. There was no such thing as a BLP policy at that time! I was getting gang-raped by anonymous teenagers on Wikipedia, and got banned when I raised objections. In 2007 my bio slowly became less of a problem. I then made the transition to a new generation of hivemind that lists admins or higher, instead of just listing those who were editing my bio and throwing insults at me on the Talk pages. The version of hivemind I have now is being done for the next person who has trouble with getting their bio removed.

What I'm doing with hivemind is basically a public service. On the issue of Internet privacy, one must first distinguish between the various roles that one plays on the Internet. If you play a passive role, such as using Google for research, then I support privacy. In fact, I've probably worked harder to support the privacy of Google users than anyone else. But if you are playing an active role, such as editing a so-called "encyclopedia," then you must be accountable for your edits because you're in a position to invade the privacy of others. In order to be accountable, your real-life identity should be on your Wikipedia user page.

That is fundamental for me. To the extent that hivemind continues to be denounced by Wikipedians, it only proves to me that Wikipedia in its present form doesn't deserve to exist in the real world.

Interesting story.

And so BLP victims have no legal right to hold WP accountable for defamation to their WP bios? Nor the WMF? And they also have no legal right to hold individuals accountable for defamation to their WP bios?

Huckabee's entry was changed to delete information about a controversial pardon and his frequent use of a state-owned airplane while Beebe's was changed to eliminate an inaccurate reference to his having a male "life partner" rather than his wife, Ginger.

Interesting story.

And so BLP victims have no legal right to hold WP accountable for defamation to their WP bios? Nor the WMF? And they also have no legal right to hold individuals accountable for defamation to their WP bios?

Now that's how something like Hivemind came into being.

Huckabee's entry was changed to delete information about a controversial pardon and his frequent use of a state-owned airplane while Beebe's was changed to eliminate an inaccurate reference to his having a male "life partner" rather than his wife, Ginger.

Knowing which state agency had the computer that edited Huckabee's Wikipedia entry was relevant because it happened while the former governor was seeking the Republican presidential nomination, Gambrell testified. Arkansas policy dictates that state resources are not to be used for political purposes.

The point is that the whole process is lacking any transparency - as shown by the story. And even legal methods can't pierce that shroud.