[Noisebridge-discuss] on allowing anonymous editing on the wiki

Johny Radio johnyradio at gmail.com
Tue May 20 01:37:44 UTC 2014

(sorry Casey and Danny for breaking the thread, this did not go into my 
mail client so i had to paste from the archive)
Re: Naomi's post: 

Naomi wrote: >>I am struggling to understand -- in this era of Tor nodes 
being used to shield anonymous edits from punishment /anyway/ -- how 
it's useful or necessary to allow "anonymous" -- meaning, IP-identified 
-- editing to our pages.

J: Not useful. It's easy to get a new IP address: Tor, public libraries, 

Naomi wrote: I'm looking for some arguments and perspectives on why 
anonymous editing of our most important, public-facing pages should or 
shouldn't be allowed.

J: in reply:

Gregory Dillon gregorydillon at gmail.com wrote: The analogy I raise is 
to a free speech scheme -- designated no protest areas, and free speech 

J: +1. Most trolling is NOT legitimate political protest, it's just 
harassment and vandalism. I think there are more efficient, less 
disruptive ways to accomodate anonymous political protest than giving 
anonymous trolls free reign on the homepage or userpages. A real hacker 
does not need Noisebridge to allow anonymous edits. Even if it's locked 
down, a real hacker would figure out how to hack into the thing:

maestro maestro415 at gmail.com, Tue Feb 18 08:18:59 UTC 2014: 
Fapfapfaping all over a wiki thats openly editable? Ooh. That really 
instills awe.

Naomi, I read the article you recommended on Wicked Problems. The 
article describes problems that seem impossible to resolve due to a 
fundamental contradiction. Please unpack: what is the contradiction you 
see, Naomi? I suggest you read the section called "Strategies", in which 
the issue is solved through community collaboration, not "the admins 
decide" or "the Board decides" or "Naomi decides".

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list