WikiIndex talk:Real names
- There are three ways to participate on a wiki:
- There are three ways to be identified when editing a wiki:
- Semanitics, maybe? I can either read or edit. Those are the two ways to participate, methinks. If I want to read, I don't need to identify myself at all. If I want to edit, that's when this RealNames page comes into play, yes? TedErnst | talk 21:28, 5 Mar 2006 (EST)
Mabye, I will give it a try:
- Maybe it is sematics. I can read this wiki or I can participate at this wiki by editing. (is reading particiaption?) If I want to read, I don't need to identify myself at all. (except there is some identification in the logging of IP addresses) If I want to participate in the wiki, that's when RealNames comes into play.
- IP addresses are logged on every website, in some way. I know I don't have access to the logs for WikiIndex. Do you? Yet when someone edits, that information is public, available to all. So back to the word "participate." If someone comes here from Buffy and the Goblet of Fire wiki and edits our entry for that wiki, is that participation? It might be, if there's some kind of dialogue on the talk page, but it also might not be. It might just be a fly-by edit, fixing an error, adding value in whatever way. I hear that you want people to participate, but not everyone that edits is participating, the way I see it. And it's not the participation that triggers this choice of 3 you've presented on RealNames, it's the editing. I think. TedErnst | talk 22:43, 5 Mar 2006 (EST)
I think editing is participation. At some level. I would much rather have an IP address attached to a fly by edit than Snoopy The Flying Dog - above you say that reading is participation... MarkDilley | talk
- A fly-by single edit is unlikely to read any guideline, nor care what it says. Those people are also unlikely to log in at all, methinks. I'm totally fine with those people showing up at IPs. That makes it really easy to see them on recent changes and to look more carefully at them. The people that I'd rather see as Snoopy The Flying Dog are the people interested in all of the 1970s cartoons wikis and they're here doing this and that every day or couple of days. They're participating. Those people, I want their nick rather than their IP, so we can see it's the same person every time and not have to patrol them all that closely. Are we getting any closer to agreement? TedErnst | talk 13:57, 6 Mar 2006 (EST)
I don't think so, and I am not sure that is needed. There are others who have input into this also :-) But help me understand your point again. There are two ways to participate: reading and editing. we don't need to know anything about anyone who is reading. If people are making a small edit, we don't need to know anything about them. But if someone is helping out on the site in a consistent manner, you would rather they have a psudonym than an IP address. That is right, right? MarkDilley | talk
- Yes. My opinions:
- reading - don't care
- fly-by - don't care
- consistent contributor - RealName > Pseudonym > IP
Links that are Pro RealNames
- A discussion at MoinMoinWiki regarding this: http://moinmoin.wikiwikiweb.de/TheAnarcat = :-) (Hi Antoine) MarkDilley | talk
- MeatBall:RealNames, MeatBall:CategoryRealNames, MeatBall:RealNameUserAdvantages MeatBall:UseRealNames, MeatBall:WhyUseRealNames
- Wiki:UserName, Wiki:RealNamesPlease
Links that are Pro RealNames but ok with Psudonyms
RealNames is a given, what about pseudo vs ip?
Great links about real names. I agree with them all, in terms of RealNames being the ideal situation. I think the overwhelming majority of edits here so far have been done by people agreeing with this.
Would it be okay to focus on the question of pseudonyms vs not logging in at all (IP address only)?
The wikipedia link above has some good reasons for people to create a username, rather than edit as an IP, and links to more.
My number one reason is that a pseudonym is an identity. When I see that identity on edits, I can develop a feeling for the quality of that person's edits in general, and then either assume they're good, or give them more scrutiny over time. With an IP, even if it's the same all the time, I'll never be able to associate one edit with another. They'll all be completely seperate and all have to be closely scrutinized. TedErnst | talk 10:52, 7 Mar 2006 (EST)
- My feelings on this are pretty strong. It took this project to understand that. I am feeling that we are already getting overwhelmed with psudonyms. Either we have to be fairly strict about RealNames or let it be open to psudonyms. I honestly don't see myself participating heavily in a community/wiki that doesn't feel real to me. My two cents :-) MarkDilley | talk
Is community more important than the creating a userful WikiIndex?
I came to the internet from using bulletin boards where almost nobody used their real names. Before that it was campus computer mainframes where user names often had limitations (the number of characters, etc.), so most of those were not real names either. On the internet, my real name is completely meaningless because you can not find any version of that name that refers to me. On the other hand, my user name, BlankVerse, has a track record that you can easily see by visiting my user page at the English-language Wikipedia. For all of my poetry and artwork, I use a different haigo (haiku penname), which is a longstanding tradition for Japanese poets.
One problem you may experience if you do require real names from participants is that people may just lie about their real names. Without any verification process like the real names feature for reviewers at amazon.com, you will never know. Mis dos centavos BlankVerse 03:49, 16 Mar 2006 (EST)
- Mark, I'm a bit confused. Are you saying you don't want to work here if RealNames isn't the standard? Does this mean you want us to have a guideline that people unwilling to use their RealNames should not log in at all? TedErnst | talk 12:27, 16 Mar 2006 (EST)
- BlankVerse, I'm not sure what you're saying here either. You seem to be arguing the question of RealNames vs PseudoNyms. If we are clear that RealNames are strongly prefered here, could you please address the difference between logging in with a PseudoNym and not logging in at all? Thanks! TedErnst | talk 12:27, 16 Mar 2006 (EST)
- I think that the policy of the Wikipedia would be best to follow. It is not pro-RealNames, as described above, but the policy is pretty agnostic on the issue of editing by real names vs. pseudonyms vs. anon IPs. To be a regular participant you almost need to have watchlists and the other benefits of having a user account. If the WikiIndex required RealNames, I probably wouldn't become a regular participant. YourName | talk 14:06, 16 Mar 2006 (EST)
Social Cost of cheap pseudonyms
How real is the support for real names on this Wiki?
- The 25 Special:ActiveUsers on this wiki on 22-10-2014: 3 People using real name (100%), 2 only a part of it (50%) and one a part of a part of it (25%). That amounts to 17 %.
- The 22 Administrators here: 6 People using real name (100%), 1 only a part of it (50%) and 1 a part of a part of it (25%). That amounts to 31 %.
So, in any case, less than 1/3 of Admins are following the suggestion to use the real name here.
And I do not want to start even on the question of showing faces or leaving details that allow to verify identities and that way see if supplied names are for real.
- Is this real name question a thing of mere wishful thinking?
- Who's Idea was this?
- Why was it not followed up since 2006?
- Legacy It's an historical relic which isn't used in practice but it's a part of the heritage of wikis in general. Koavf (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
On this Wiki, and that is what the Namespace WikiIndex: is about, it is not a legacy, because it is actively promoted by inserting this template on every new users talk page:
Hello, Real names! Welcome to WikiIndex :-)
|WikiIndex builds bridges between wiki communities. We hope that you will enjoy browsing and editing this site.
Our goal is to make an index of all wiki sites.