On anonymity -- by A.J. Keen (with a little help from Jim and Jeff)

I did a Commonwealth Club debate with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on Thursday. As I told Jimmy, I think Wikipedia has a lot of promise, but is marred by two fatal flaws: 1) Its failure to economically reward Wikipedian contributors; 2) The anonymity of these contributors. It's the anonymity of Wikipedian contributors which most disturbs me. Given that information is never absolute nor completely value free, I always want to know the identity of its author. This fetish with anonymity, then, is the main reason why Wikipedia is such a flawed intellectual experiment. As I implored Jimmy Wales on Thursday, Wikipedia needs to reveal the real identity of its contributors. Then -- and only then -- will it become a truly credible information resource.

But the curse of online anonymity goes well beyond Wikipedia. As I argue in an op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times entitled "Douse the Online Flamers", our legal establishment needs to re-examine some of its philosophical assumptions around the principle of online anonymity. My argument, however, is moral rather than legal. I want to see online anonymous bullies and sadists accountable for their actions. I want them to be punished -- fined or even imprisoned -- as a consequence of their immoral actions. "Douse the Online Flamers" was inspired by a brilliant article on the Yale Law School case in the New York Law Journal by Jim Goodale, former New York Times vice-chairman and host of the essential Digital Age tv show. As the lawyer who represented The Times in the Pentagon Papers case, Goodale is also one the country's leading First Amendment lawyers -- and when attorneys as experienced and erudite as Jim Goodale begin to question the law's leniency toward online anonymity, we all need to take note. Jim also introduced me to a partner at Debevoise and Plimpton, Jeff Cunard, an expert on online anonymity and the law, who very patiently answered all my dumb questions. So thanks Jim and Jeff. I couldn't have written my op-ed without you.

It goes without saying, of course, that "Douse the Online Flamers" reflects neither the views nor the wisdom of either Jim Goodale or Jeff Cunard. I'm totally accountable -- it's all the work of A.J. Keen.

Comments

[Kell Brigan]

Yeah, maybe, but...

Doesn't this get back to the filtering problem? One reason I avoid comments and almost all blogs is not because they're anonymous, but because their just not worth the time. I suspect that anything worth reading already had a low level of anonymity, i.e. is published (online or elsewhere) by reputable outlets, or is associated with reputable publishers (i.e. this blog, which I found via Currency's listings, which showed up as part of a subject search.) Even if there were some sort of (probably expensive) rating or clearance or ID checking to cut down on anonymity -- and therefore verbal abuse and insults -- in amateur contexts, the overall quality of the posts wouldn't improve enough for me to want to spend time reading it. In other words, I want more editors, first and foremost.

[Marc J. Randazza]

Its too bad that you didn't actually read the AutoAdmit complaint.

Outing AutoAdmit Defendants - Litigation Model or Bounty Model? deconstructs some of it.

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/outing-autoadmit-defendants-litigation-model-or-bounty-model/

And Goodale *used to be* brilliant. I dont think so highly of him anymore. His pro "big media" bias is showing through. He's not a First Amendment lawyer, he is a corporate lawyer who represents media companies. If trampling the Constitution would put a piece of silver in his pocket, he wouldn't even wipe his feet first.

[Anonymous]

You're assuming that by knowing who an author is, you'll be able to make a valid judgement about their work. There are more than enough cases of hidden bias in non-anonymous sources to disprove that assumption. Politically skewed journalists, academics in the pockets of special interest groups, etc.

Anonymity asks readers to treat content more skeptically than they otherwise would. There's no big name associated with content that lulls people into uncritical acceptance. No John Stossel or Fox News. At least sources in Wikipedia are usually cited, linking information back to experts in meatspace, which is more than you can say for the information provided by mainstream media.

The number of lives torn apart by online anonymity, whether through false wikipedia articles or chat forum slander, is vanishingly small. Your failure to acknowledge this happens to be wonderfully self-serving. If the media didn't make a big fuss over an isolated suicide or each case of message board slander, no one outside the old guard of content generating elites would give a damn about this subject.

[Karl K]

Jimmy Wales has done a great job with Wikipedia, all its attendant troubles notwithstanding.

The hidden (or perhaps not so hidden) subtext of your position, Andrew, is that people are stupid and need experts to guide them and provide quality content.

Frankly, THAT'S a sack of crap. I prefer to think that people are generally pretty smart (at least people who use wikipedia with care) and look at all sources, anonymous or "expert" -- as a useful view on a subject or issue.

Only stupid people would take what wikipedia says as gospel. Of course, these are the same people who take what "experts" say -- like Dan Rather on National Guard memos -- as gospel too.