Anonymous Identity

The general term for the use of pseudonyms such as AnonymousDonor, AnonymousCoward and AnonymousHero, that are used to emphasize the anonymity of Wiki edits. They are sometimes used as signatures within pages and sometimes as UserNames in RecentChanges.

Anonymous posts can be made anonymous simply by leaving off the signature. Signing a post as anonymous seems to be somewhat redundant.

The subject of anonymity itself is somewhat controversial. While anonymity may seem valuable from the perspective of separating ego from content, it can also be used to separate content from accountability. As generous as it is to selflessly donate time and energy to improving Wiki anonymously it is also cowardly to attack others under a veil of secrecy. As the reputation of an author follows from the quality of their work so, ultimately, will the reputation of anonymous contributors ultimately follow from the quality of anonymous contributions in general. It remains to be seen whether we, as a community, will flock eagerly to new anonymous edits or whether we will learn to avoid them.

Delineating unsigned ThreadMode

My preference is to sign comments when originally made, and then remove the signature at some later date. The problem with just removing the signature is that the converstation flow is then muddled. The convention of alternating normal and italics text breaks down when a third person wishes to comment between normal and italics sections. Using AnonymousDonor conveys that it was a separate comment, but that the author claims no ownership, but rather grants the comment to the community. Does anyone have an idea of how to keep the flow of threads clear when multiple people are making unsigned comments?

Don't make unsigned comments? (I see what you did there)

Or you can put in a couple of hyphens to delineate a change in author.

Another approach is to use a DramaticIdentity -- WikiMind

People used to use horizontal lines but I'd prefer to reserve those for changes in topic not changes in authorship. I frankly think that if we refrain from UnethicalEditing and make only useful changes the reason for unsigned posts goes away. Ownership is too extreme one way and rampant deletion and editing goes to far the other. -- PhilGoodwin

Going from signed to anonymous

"I make revisions without signing, but new comments on discussions, or new topics I sign. This way people will be able to decide if they think I'm an idiot or not by watching a large number of posts with the same signature instead of anonymous unsigned changes." - AnonymousCoward

I agree wholeheartedly on signing new comments. But later I go back (once people have seen my signature and decided if I am an idiot or not) and change the signature to AnonymousDonor.

Problems with anonymity

I believe that this page was created by the "original" AnonymousCoward, who wanted to talk about how he had created an AnonymousIdentity for himself (writing in his AnonymousCoward "home page", but with the uniqueness of this identity apparently being disputed by another AnonymousCoward!). This was before the UserName facility existed. The issue of signing RecentChanges using an "anonymous" UserName like MinorEdit is subtly different from anonymous signatures within pages.

I doubt that.

I don't know about you but I find discussion of anonymity hard to read, hard to write, hard to decipher and refactor. Can Wiki please return to virtually no aliases, as in PlainEnglish? Either sign, with your real name, or not. -- RichardDrake

In what way is having a group of shared pseudonyms different from using chat-room style nicknames?

Maybe it's worse, because a name that one person starts to use is then taken on by others. That's what happened with AnonymousCoward right? That sets the stage for those cute netizens who enjoy playing around with such identity confusion, as happened with FourAnonymousContributions? and the reduction of RichardDrake.

Are those into AnonymousIdentity advocating the use of aliases on Wiki as in a chat room? If so Ward is on record as totally against the idea, as is PlainEnglish. Can we ever know that AnonymousCoward has been and is a single person wherever he (or she) signs, and for how long into the future?

Having said that, do we know WayneCool or WardCunningham is a "single person" come to that? Let's face it, signatures and signed contributions are very insecure on Wiki. Funnily enough a lot of the people the signatures represent are insecure too. The two facts have interacted in interesting ways. But that's all the more reason not to add to confusion.

The culture of Wiki was until recently one of people using their real names for signatures and providing an email address for offline discussion where appropriate (for instance to maintain the WikiPolitenessLevel by saying your harshest thoughts one to one). Three recent trends I personally really regret are:

use of pseudonyms, except maybe in RecentChanges (see MinorEditUserName?)
harsh criticisms and attacks on individuals or groups (even when open to various interpretations) without signature or with AnonymousIdentity type signature
harsh criticisms and attacks on individuals or groups with real name signature but no email address. For example: I wanted to have a private conversation with JohnRepici about WikiCreep and could not email him.

Positive or constructive anonymous contributions - and indeed MinorEdits that require no discussion or accountability - have always be a helpful part of Wiki culture. Such responsible (and indeed humble) use of anonymity shouldn't be confused with the above, which are either pollution or abuse. -- RichardDrake

Hear hear. Good work Richard. I totally agree with this last bit. I see now what your earlier point about email was. I think that maybe this bit should be put into DocumentMode somewhere. Maybe the OpeningStatement of this page could be edited into a ThereforeBut using this. -- PhilGoodwin

AnonymousIdentity's that have been defined and used on Wiki - all reasonably recently - include AnonymousCoward, AnonymousHero and AnonymousDonor. DramaticIdentity has an excellent spoof discussion which personalises Wiki and XP very effectively. Although this works well as a dramatic device I'm arguing that almost all other experiments with AnonymousIdentity should now be ConsideredHarmful, based on experience. -- rd

In what way is having a group of shared pseudonyms different from using chat-room style nicknames? - because they are shared. Look at it this way: To create lasting value we must refactor. To refactor we must avoid avoid CodeOwnership. Yet people find it easier to write in ThreadMode than DocumentMode, and then we need ways to delimit comments from different viewpoints. This leads to the idea of DramaticIdentity and DialecticMode; discussions between abstract fictional characters. AnonymousIdentity is a fictional character without much actual character.

We shouldn't use AnonymousIdentity unless leaving no signature at all would cause a greater problem. The problems include not being able to distinguish changes in view point, and giving the impression of more consensus than exists. Is there a better way to solve these problems? If not, why consider this solution harmful?

Don't discuss it here any more?

If you'd like to discuss AnonymousIdentity (and identities in general) in the wider sense of online collaborations, MeatballWiki has some pages devoted to this. See especially http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AnonymousIdentity

Reason: It is WikiOnWiki stuff and seems to run counter to GentleReductionism . -- FridemarPache