http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle1673425.ece

A good column — mentions Wikipedia and Essjay, but mostly about Web 2.0 in general.

by Bryan Appleyard, April 22, 2007

"The simple ability to conceal one’s identity is the deep flaw in the arguments of all Web 2.0’s libertarian boosters. Psychologists have long been aware that the more people are distanced from each other, the easier they find it to do them harm. This degrades bloggery. But, more important, it also threatens all forms of authority. All western — not just scientific — wisdom is based on identity. Advocates and their critics can be identified and their ideas formally tested. This is nothing to do with the statistics of crowds, and everything to do with the authority of the person. Take that away and truth and judgment become fictions."

(My opinion: What we need is for some clever social psychologist to design an experiment that replicates the Wikipedia editing experience and compares the anonymous User with the User who uses his real name. Which one tends to edit BLP articles vindictively?)

Isn't it just amazing how the mere brazen questioning of authority, in an open system that could and should elicit representation of the entire spectrum of views, is being framed in the current debate by means of an implicit but vaguely supported assumption that basic civil rights such as privacy and free speech are inherently negative? In contrast, and to a large degree, it has been established that privacy and anonymity enhances the free and frank exchange of knowledge. Thus, the arguments being advanced to justify the encroachment of authoritarianism appear far fetched, at best, and clearly present a threat to both privacy and free speech.

The arguments advanced thus far favoring restrictions on free speech, via abandonment of the right to privacy, seem to derive primarily from old fashioned fear mongering, and bring to mind the sort of tortured reasoning mastered by Donald Rumsfeld and his ilk: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

The very premise upon which Wikipedia was established --a universal privilege to edit-- has already been undermined in oh so many ways, ranging from divide and attack RfC and RfAr crusades (which typically amount to little more than modern versions of Elizabethan era public stocks) to ruthless harassment and suppression campaigns.

Creating an über-class of editors --by awarding badges denoting trust to 'solve' the purported threat represented by anonymity-- would certainly exacerbate the double standards that have escalated systemic bias within the Wiki. On the other hand, as Brandt suggests, it would be difficult if not impossible to accurately predict the costs versus the benefits that may derive from implementing the current proposal, which undoubtedly would promote expert worship while encouraging the vilification of heresy.