Hi Jimbo, My concern about pseudonyms is that they can compromised after-the-fact. Suppose Li Li is over in China writing blogs, and she selects Muzimei as her pseudonym and implements it with any of several digital signature schemes. Then she writes a bunch of blog entries, and possibly a few edits to her Wikipedia page. Wikipedia trusts her because of her reputation, and presumably no one knows her real name is Li Li. Except there's an eyewitness to one of her blogs, or the authorities raid her Linux box and her private key is compromised. Li Li has a serious problem, because all of her previous activity is signed by her Muzimei pseudonym, so after 36 hours of interrogation she confesses, is found guilty of separatism in an 18 minute trial, and executed 20 days later. I still lean in favor of approaches which protect Wikipedia on the basis of actual content submitted, instead of information about the submitter. This is why Paul Syverson and I are advancing these types of proposals. Once again, one way to check content (until machines can "think" better) is to have not-necessarily-anonymous parties with interests in specific subjects ok what would otherwise be anonymous posts prior to the posts showing up. This system would be only as efficient as these "approving" personnel for anonymous posts, but these people can be mutually selected in the sense that an anonymous editor can nominate anyone, and Wikipedia may refuse anyone. It's a little like any meeting held under Robert's Rules of Order. To discuss anything, someone must present a motion and someone else needs to second it. If the content's not pertinent enough for even a second, there really no need for the group to consider it. In the mechanism I am suggestion (as an intermediate-term approach to try), the mover may be anonymous if the seconder is willing not to be. Marc On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 08:36, Jimmy Wales wrote:

Marc Abel wrote:

...

This has law enforcement implications; if you can prove that Alice took the cookie from the cookie jar, perhaps using eyewitnesses, you can now show that Alice did many other unreputable things.

Can you explain this in more detail?

--Jimbo

----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]