

On the moral bankruptcy of Wikipedia’s anonymous administration - nkurz
http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/09/02/on-the-moral-bankruptcy-of-wikipedias-anonymous-administration/

======
mjklin
"Responsible journalists" can and do use noms de plume regularly (e.g. George
Orwell, Theodore Dalrymple, journalists under political oppression). It
certainly does not automatically make them "morally bankrupt".

I'm going to have to hear some better reasons than these from a notorious Wiki
naysayer.

~~~
coldtea
Using an ad-hominen like "notorious Wiki naysayer" makes it clear from the
onset that you have an axe to grind.

For starters, while journalists use "noms de plume" their real names are known
to their editors and their outlets. This is not the case with Wikipedia. Not
to mention that the names behind the "noms de plume" you mentioned (Orwell,
Dalrymple) were also known to the public at large. English readers could
easily find that Orwell was Eric Blair.

Second, for having "to hear some better reasons than these", he gave a lot of
MORE reasons in his post, which you conveniently seem to have missed. From
banned editors who continue to serve on various wikipedia boards despite
showing extreme dishonesty (using fake accounts, promoting stuff, etc), to
hiring a convicted felon as a COO, to pointing to a book full of similar
transgressions.

~~~
mjklin
Identifying bias is not the same as ad hominem. This is a man with a long
history of eating Wikipedia's sour grapes and cannot be trusted as an
impartial observer. That's all I'm saying.

My main problem with his post is: what is the main thing he is trying to
accomplish? Identify editors, yes, but to what end?

He does not state the end. We would assume since he's talking about an
encyclopedia that it's to produce better quality articles. But since he names
a bunch of bad stuff they supposedly did, it seems he just wants them to stop
doing things he objects to.

"Stop doing things I object to" is not something that can be argued. "Write
better quality articles" can. So let's assume this is what he meant.

So would identifying editors produce better quality articles? Maybe, but he
doesn't make that argument. He argues that they must be identified because
otherwise they are "morally bankrupt." An empty phrase that is pure name-
calling.

It is, however, an argument.

Are HN commenters morally bankrupt because they don't use their real names? Or
any of a thousand internet sites that do the same? Are there any instances of
editors using false names and not being morally bankrupt? These are the
questions we must investigate to respond to his argument.

As for the rest of it:

> banned editors who continue to serve on various wikipedia boards

Would firing them produce better articles? Maybe, but where's the argument?
Otherwise it's just an attempt to smear.

> hiring a convicted felon as COO

Would firing him produce better articles?

> a book full of similar transgressions

OK, so let's see it. He seems giddy with delight over it. But will it argue
for reforms in Wikipedia's structure with good reasons, or just be more dirty
laundry?

Sanger is supposedly a philosopher, but seems to think casting aspersions is
the same as arguing a point.

------
fsk
I gave up on Wikipedia a long time ago. I'll read, but I don't contribute
anymore.

