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

[Johny Radio]

(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: 
https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2014-May/044631.html

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, 
etc.

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 
areas.


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".
htttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem