Unfortunately, it isn't a joke. Dubya thinks he hears voices from Jesus and the result is all too reminiscent of some of Hitler's actions. The motivations of the abusive 'contributors' to these topics varies widely, of course, but crazy is as crazy does. Insanity explains anything, but it has no predictive power.
The real joke is the ridiculous introduction to the topic. Of course Wikipedia is going to have problems where they are excessively idealistic. However, I don't think this is a very good solution. I think it would be better to use a form of controlled moderation. If an article is getting too many changes, too much reading activity, or is just manually designated as 'potentially troublesome', then all changes should be put on a pending status, and should be reviewed by randomly selected visitors before they are approved for general public visibility.
Wikipedia could actually do it by asking the next readers of any edited article whether or not they wanted to see the old 'approved' version or if they would be willing to consider the changes in the new article. If they want to see the changes, then they would see them in color, and they would have a form to check on to agree that those changes seem reasonable and should be included in the new page. Just an arbitrary example, but you might set the rule so that after five people approve of the changes, then they are considered part of the normal page, but if anyone disagrees with the proposed changes, then they article automatically moves into 'controversial status' for more attention. (And yes, you neeed to track the IP addresses to make sure the same guy doesn't try to read the article five times to approve his own changes.) Actually, the number of approvals required should probably be a function of the number of people reading the article.
In conclusion, such a proposal won't eliminate all abuse, but Wikipedia is not endangered.
Just before reading this article I was apologizing to my friend for taking so long at the store because they had this gadget there that I had to play with, though I didn't actually buy one. It was a flashlight and radio with no batteries, but just a crank you use to charge it up. I thought it was really cute, but obviously my addiction isn't too bad, since I didn't buy it. Or maybe that was because I couldn't hear any good radio stations there?
Actually, I'm not, due to the policies of my employer. I've sometimes felt that if I really wanted to change the world, the first thing I would need to do is...
Anyway, flogging the dead horse, but you can't solve an economic problem with technical or legal solutions. The root of spam is division by zero--the spammers think their costs per message are effectively zero, so sending out another million is nothing. If they find one sucker to send them $39.79, the RoI looks infinite, given this delusion.
You know, I think we should blame Al Gore. He was one of the guys who got them the seed money so they could be so idealistic in their protocol designs. Nice guys in those days, but the Internet is now quite well populated with not-so-nice guys.
Solution? A non-free economic model for email. I happen to have such a design here in my pocket, but...
There's no mud here, except possibly in your mind. If such powers are available, they will be used and abused.
More importantly, the powers will be abused at EVERYONE. The way Dubya's kind of absolutist self-righteous thinking works, anyone who opposes him is impeding his effectiveness, and therefore deserves to be treated as an enemy. Some people really do see the world in black and white, or "with us or against us", as Dubya put it.
The problem is that there is no black or white in the real world. Everything is more or less gray, but if you've decided the world is black and white, and you believe that you're "white", then anyone who is not white equals "black". Ultimately, this 'thinking' extends to include everyone else as an enemy, since no one will be perfectly "white" according to our "white" believer. Here's relevant joke.
By the way, this is a 'revenge' karma-recovery post after another anonymous and cowardly troll moderator splattered me with his muddy mod points. I also feel like I should 'retaliate' by racking up a few extra positive mods. However, what I really want is to know who my spineless 'accuser' is.
Well, I've searched quite extensively under most of the keywords I could think of, and not found any mention of this aspect, so I'll tack it in here.
The real reason this kind of thing is stupid in general is because it prevents us from studying our enemies. If you can't understand what your enemies are thinking, then it is much more likely that they are going to be able to blindside you.
I'll give a concrete example that is actually related to real threats. I have a number of friends and acquaintances of various Islamic persuasions. They would naturally have different perspectives on the real threats of Islamic-based extremism. However, given the ideological climate of America as exemplified by this kind of incident, I'm certainly not going to risk causing them any problems by asking them for their insights.
On the other hand, worrying about potential communist sympathizers at this time is just plain stupid. You'd think the president who'd allow such a thing would have to be some kind of moron.
It's a pretty good browser, they have a development team in place but in a sellable form, and it has some especial strengths for the high-growth pervasive market. More importantly, it actually has the potential to be a tactical threat to Microsoft, but as a relatively external unit, it could also be sold off if the tactic doesn't work.
Interesting point. Not sure how effective it would be, but I'd refuse to do business with any company or any person who refused to allow me to have my own copy of any interaction between us.
I'm unclear why you think the "legal route" in particular is a "nonstarter already". In fact, this is actually an extension of several items in the Bill of Rights, and corresponding rights are included in the constitutions and charters of various other governments. If you start with rights against unjustified search and against self-incrimination, then you have to consider the legal ramifications if all of the incriminating information has already been found and placed outside of your control.
No, I'm not advocating that people should have any rights to commit crimes, but actually, having your own information is also your only way to defend yourself against false accusations. We've already reached the technical abilities to manufacture any sort of evidence. Identity theft is just the tip of this iceberg.
Not just this post, but the thread. Actually, I think this is already a 'design feature' of IPv6, and that's coming, too.
Anyway, I'm not sure there will be any such thing as privacy in the near future. Right now it's already becoming a luxury good, and pretty soon only millionaires will be able to afford it.
There is a solution, but no guarantee we'll reach it. We need to define an individual's personal information as belonging to that individual, and any use or reference to that information should only be with permission, and based on some good reason. To put actual teeth in such a legal principle, I think it needs to be coupled with a right to store your own information (presumably on your own computer). Without such a basis for protecting privacy... Well, you'd better get use to appearing all over the Internet when you least expect it.
Fine. Your first few words convinced me you're an idiot. All I want from an idiot is the "foe" red dot. It's just a mutual convenience. Unfortunately, supplies are limited, and mine are in use for friends.
If you're too dull to understand such trivial math, I really have no reason to pretend to discuss such complicated matters with you. Or are you just too stupid to understand that his 'point' was supposed to be that it is hard to divide 100 by 3? Do you understand why I compared his 'argument' to dividing 12 by 10? Do you want to consider a treatise on the 'virtues' of prime bases?
You may regard it as some form of arrogance. I simply regard it as keeping my mouth shut unless the topic is one that I understand well enough so that I can say something clearly. However, even then I normally attempt to apply appropriate qualifications or restrictions on the scope of my statements.
Whatever. The impression you have created is that you're a thin-skinned fool of one sort or another. Is there any reason I should care what sort of fool? Why don't you just mark me as a "foe" and we shall happily ignore each other?
If you have nothing intelligent to say on the topic, why did you reply at all? Do you just like arguing?
If I were a fan of stupidity, I would be especially fond of the part about "whole measurements". Quick, tell me how much is 1/10th of a foot? Okay. Then how about 1/3 of an inch? I can instantly tell you 33-1/3 cm for your foolish question, and in measuring it I can just stop at the required degree of precision.
Don't take it too personally, but you really sound like the kind of ignorant and illogical [American] person whose posts I'd prefer to ignore. You can make that easier by designating me as your "foe". My slots are reserved for friends for several constructive reasons. There's nothing constructive in your post, so no loss for you, and my settings will mostly ignore your post-foe-setting posts.
Exactly the same kind of foolishness that keeps the US from going metric. If you prefer to see it as an opportunity to invest in new metric tools or IPv6 hardware and software, then it looks like an opportunity. The people who fight against such changes want to harp on the total costs, and generally refuse to consider rational transition strategies.
To me, it mostly comes down to efficiencies. The reason we measure things in the first place is so we can perform mathematical operations on the resulting numbers. Metric units are easier and more efficient for the mathematical operations, and therefore confer some competitive advantage on the people using them. It might be a large or small advantage, but it's always there.
IPv4 has some design limitations. IPv6 will address many of those problems, and the networks (and countries) that use that system will have competitive advantage.
What I find amusing is that many of the same people fighting against IPv6 on grounds of cost are the same people who want to argue the damage of Hurricane Katrina wasn't so bad. After all, it will give us the "opportunity" to invest billions of dollars in rebuilding things. Hey, why don't we destroy a major city every year? Look at all the "opportunities" we'd have. However, moving to IPv6 is NOT to be equated with random destruction, but is rather a rational form of evolution.
When I was much younger I used to spend a lot of time in discussions with various sorts of extremists and fanatics. Actually, I still believe that the truth is most often found somewhere between the extremes, and I do make some effort to know where the extreme positions are.
However, I have concluded that it is essentially always a waste of time to have discussions with extremists. There are two reasons for having a discussion. One is to seek clarification of the position. However, I am quite fluent in English and do not need much help in understanding it, and especially not when the extremist is simply repeating some old position that I've studied a number of times.
The other reason for a conversation is to try to persuade someone of your position. (I'm including negotiations here.) The essential nature of an extremist is that you are not going to change their opinion, even if you modify or adjust your own opinions (and I do, and frequently).
I think the most illustrative example regards religious discussions, though politics has mostly transitioned to the same style these years. When I was young I was frequently involved in religious discussions, believing that there must be some element of the truth there. (Actually, there is, but for now that's actually outside of the scope of this discussion.) I eventually learned that it was possible to go fairly quickly to a small set of premises that the fanatic based their position on. Many of them weren't smart enough to know the basis of their own extremism, but once it was pointed out, then they would concur. Having reached that point, there was no sense in continuing the discussions.
"The Bible is the literal and exact word of God."
"You do not speak Hebrew or Greek. Therefore, how did God design his word to be expressed perfectly in languages that did not yet exist?"
"The Bible is the literal and exact word of God."
Such discussions will always loop at some such point. Therefore I regard them as a waste of time.
Okay, if that isn't adequate, I now call you a worthless motherfucking piece of shit. Your only purpose in my life is to provide a red dot as a "foe". Now go away before I have to remember more of the military jargon.
If he has a good point, then he doesn't need to be "a dick about it", as you put it. I could apologize for responding in kind, but I actually prefer to provoke such losers on the hope that such a person will designate me as a "foe" for the convenience of the future ignoring. What actually tends to happen is that someone else designates me a a "friend" for reasons which generally escape me. I basically designate a "friend" for the journal tracking feature, and I don't make so many journal entries here.
On the substance, he's probably some kind of Randian or Liberterian, and I really do find them rather vile and not worth wasting time with. The root of their philosophy is that humans are no better than animals, and the only purpose of intelligence is to be a more vicious and successful animal than the "weaker" humans. This is not the place for deeper philosophic discussion, actually, but I regard people as different from each other, but the differences are insignificant in comparison with the similarities. And I do think we are capable of being more than animals and should never give up that objective--though neither can we ignore our animal natures.
I think that's actually a relatively unusual case because the factory owners would prefer to sell all of it at the maximum price possible. I'm thinking of the simple improvement of technology. For example, a genuine handmade ceramic cup might sell for $40, and that value is partly based on its uniqueness and the reputation of the artist. However, if someone takes one such cup and gears a factory around that design, they can produce thousands of almost identical cups for $1. A real expert would be able to detect the signs of mass production, but it's getting harder and harder to do so, and the main marketing effort in this kind of case is just to keep two cups from appearing next to each other in a store, with each labeled as being a unique item.
Oh, you "fuck the suckers" people are just so cute. It would be less amusing if you also weren't so preachy about right and wrong having any existence. Especially amusing to watch you self-proclaimed smart fools getting screwed precisely because you think you're so smart. Makes it much easier, actually.
I regard you as hypocritical and stupid, but that's okay. Reality is terribly persistent, and I remain confident that there is such a thing as intrinsic value even beyond the ability to lie convincingly. I even think there is such a thing as good, and things will continue to get better on average. However, I know better than to attempt to discuss philosophic niceties with fools.
Perhaps I'm jumping to the conclusion, but I think you should designate me as a "foe" and we can merrily ignore each other forever. I really have much better things to do with my time.
Point 1. If the search engines want to retain their value in returning valuable information, then they need to detect rank-promotion techniques and appropriately downrank them. Unfortunately, that will be an unending war.
Point 2. The reason these marketing "people" keep at it is because the fundamental economic system has become broken. It used to be true that 'you got what you pay for', at least roughly. In particular, if you got much less than you paid for, it was pretty easy to determine that the reason was some sort of fraud. Nowadays, it has become very difficult to tell the difference between 'good' stuff that's worth more money and cheap [often Chinese] imitations of the most popular models. At the same time, a nice brand name will allow selling roughly equivalent goods for several times the price. All broken.
The result? All values are becoming totally distorted, and they market presidential candidates and even wars in just the same reality-detached ways. Is the joke on the Chinese for continuing to accept the IOUs?
One of the big problems with discussions on/. is the incomprehensible race to be the first to post something. That's another form of abuse of anonymity (thoush sometimes the secondary form of anonymity), and the usual result is a bunch of tripe topics to start the discussions.
With regards to Wilipedia, abuses of anonymity are the most serious problem affecting the system, and yet they are not mentioned anywhere in this discussion. At least not in the introduction or in any of the visible posts. (The visibility question would relate to the flaws in/. moderation--and I think that most of those flaws are also related to abuses of anonimity, too, so they're still an aspect of the same problem.)
There are two major arguments made in favor of anonymity, and they both reek like the big dog's m0e, so to speak. The convenience argument is the easiest to deal with. If someone is too lazy or incoompetent to register with a simple and free system, then that person is not worth listening to in the first place.
The other argument for anonymity is that sometimes very important information is possessed by people who could risk retribution for revealing it. This is certainly true, but in that case Wikipedia is not the correct place to be publishing it, since anyone else could change or obfuscate that important information. Actually, if I had something to hide, I'd frequently be searching the Internet to try to find out what leaks or rumors were circulating--and in the case of Wikipedia it would be quite easy to block the information or confuse, or even exaggerate it to make it sound ridiculous (elevating it to a Class 3 lie).
In conclusion, I think anonymity is not the way to defend our personal rights. It is mostly used by people who are simply trying to escape accountability for negative actions.
Slashdot Mirror
The real joke is the ridiculous introduction to the topic. Of course Wikipedia is going to have problems where they are excessively idealistic. However, I don't think this is a very good solution. I think it would be better to use a form of controlled moderation. If an article is getting too many changes, too much reading activity, or is just manually designated as 'potentially troublesome', then all changes should be put on a pending status, and should be reviewed by randomly selected visitors before they are approved for general public visibility.
Wikipedia could actually do it by asking the next readers of any edited article whether or not they wanted to see the old 'approved' version or if they would be willing to consider the changes in the new article. If they want to see the changes, then they would see them in color, and they would have a form to check on to agree that those changes seem reasonable and should be included in the new page. Just an arbitrary example, but you might set the rule so that after five people approve of the changes, then they are considered part of the normal page, but if anyone disagrees with the proposed changes, then they article automatically moves into 'controversial status' for more attention. (And yes, you neeed to track the IP addresses to make sure the same guy doesn't try to read the article five times to approve his own changes.) Actually, the number of approvals required should probably be a function of the number of people reading the article.
In conclusion, such a proposal won't eliminate all abuse, but Wikipedia is not endangered.
Just before reading this article I was apologizing to my friend for taking so long at the store because they had this gadget there that I had to play with, though I didn't actually buy one. It was a flashlight and radio with no batteries, but just a crank you use to charge it up. I thought it was really cute, but obviously my addiction isn't too bad, since I didn't buy it. Or maybe that was because I couldn't hear any good radio stations there?
Actually, I'm not, due to the policies of my employer. I've sometimes felt that if I really wanted to change the world, the first thing I would need to do is...
Anyway, flogging the dead horse, but you can't solve an economic problem with technical or legal solutions. The root of spam is division by zero--the spammers think their costs per message are effectively zero, so sending out another million is nothing. If they find one sucker to send them $39.79, the RoI looks infinite, given this delusion.
You know, I think we should blame Al Gore. He was one of the guys who got them the seed money so they could be so idealistic in their protocol designs. Nice guys in those days, but the Internet is now quite well populated with not-so-nice guys.
Solution? A non-free economic model for email. I happen to have such a design here in my pocket, but...
More importantly, the powers will be abused at EVERYONE. The way Dubya's kind of absolutist self-righteous thinking works, anyone who opposes him is impeding his effectiveness, and therefore deserves to be treated as an enemy. Some people really do see the world in black and white, or "with us or against us", as Dubya put it.
The problem is that there is no black or white in the real world. Everything is more or less gray, but if you've decided the world is black and white, and you believe that you're "white", then anyone who is not white equals "black". Ultimately, this 'thinking' extends to include everyone else as an enemy, since no one will be perfectly "white" according to our "white" believer. Here's relevant joke.
By the way, this is a 'revenge' karma-recovery post after another anonymous and cowardly troll moderator splattered me with his muddy mod points. I also feel like I should 'retaliate' by racking up a few extra positive mods. However, what I really want is to know who my spineless 'accuser' is.
The real reason this kind of thing is stupid in general is because it prevents us from studying our enemies. If you can't understand what your enemies are thinking, then it is much more likely that they are going to be able to blindside you.
I'll give a concrete example that is actually related to real threats. I have a number of friends and acquaintances of various Islamic persuasions. They would naturally have different perspectives on the real threats of Islamic-based extremism. However, given the ideological climate of America as exemplified by this kind of incident, I'm certainly not going to risk causing them any problems by asking them for their insights.
On the other hand, worrying about potential communist sympathizers at this time is just plain stupid. You'd think the president who'd allow such a thing would have to be some kind of moron.
Oh, wait...
It's a pretty good browser, they have a development team in place but in a sellable form, and it has some especial strengths for the high-growth pervasive market. More importantly, it actually has the potential to be a tactical threat to Microsoft, but as a relatively external unit, it could also be sold off if the tactic doesn't work.
Interesting point. Not sure how effective it would be, but I'd refuse to do business with any company or any person who refused to allow me to have my own copy of any interaction between us.
No, I'm not advocating that people should have any rights to commit crimes, but actually, having your own information is also your only way to defend yourself against false accusations. We've already reached the technical abilities to manufacture any sort of evidence. Identity theft is just the tip of this iceberg.
Anyway, I'm not sure there will be any such thing as privacy in the near future. Right now it's already becoming a luxury good, and pretty soon only millionaires will be able to afford it.
There is a solution, but no guarantee we'll reach it. We need to define an individual's personal information as belonging to that individual, and any use or reference to that information should only be with permission, and based on some good reason. To put actual teeth in such a legal principle, I think it needs to be coupled with a right to store your own information (presumably on your own computer). Without such a basis for protecting privacy... Well, you'd better get use to appearing all over the Internet when you least expect it.
Fine. Your first few words convinced me you're an idiot. All I want from an idiot is the "foe" red dot. It's just a mutual convenience. Unfortunately, supplies are limited, and mine are in use for friends.
You may regard it as some form of arrogance. I simply regard it as keeping my mouth shut unless the topic is one that I understand well enough so that I can say something clearly. However, even then I normally attempt to apply appropriate qualifications or restrictions on the scope of my statements.
Whatever. The impression you have created is that you're a thin-skinned fool of one sort or another. Is there any reason I should care what sort of fool? Why don't you just mark me as a "foe" and we shall happily ignore each other?
If I were a fan of stupidity, I would be especially fond of the part about "whole measurements". Quick, tell me how much is 1/10th of a foot? Okay. Then how about 1/3 of an inch? I can instantly tell you 33-1/3 cm for your foolish question, and in measuring it I can just stop at the required degree of precision.
Don't take it too personally, but you really sound like the kind of ignorant and illogical [American] person whose posts I'd prefer to ignore. You can make that easier by designating me as your "foe". My slots are reserved for friends for several constructive reasons. There's nothing constructive in your post, so no loss for you, and my settings will mostly ignore your post-foe-setting posts.
To me, it mostly comes down to efficiencies. The reason we measure things in the first place is so we can perform mathematical operations on the resulting numbers. Metric units are easier and more efficient for the mathematical operations, and therefore confer some competitive advantage on the people using them. It might be a large or small advantage, but it's always there.
IPv4 has some design limitations. IPv6 will address many of those problems, and the networks (and countries) that use that system will have competitive advantage.
What I find amusing is that many of the same people fighting against IPv6 on grounds of cost are the same people who want to argue the damage of Hurricane Katrina wasn't so bad. After all, it will give us the "opportunity" to invest billions of dollars in rebuilding things. Hey, why don't we destroy a major city every year? Look at all the "opportunities" we'd have. However, moving to IPv6 is NOT to be equated with random destruction, but is rather a rational form of evolution.
Projection of your own stupidity will get you nowhere. A red "foe" dot will allow me to remember to personally ignore you.
However, I have concluded that it is essentially always a waste of time to have discussions with extremists. There are two reasons for having a discussion. One is to seek clarification of the position. However, I am quite fluent in English and do not need much help in understanding it, and especially not when the extremist is simply repeating some old position that I've studied a number of times.
The other reason for a conversation is to try to persuade someone of your position. (I'm including negotiations here.) The essential nature of an extremist is that you are not going to change their opinion, even if you modify or adjust your own opinions (and I do, and frequently).
I think the most illustrative example regards religious discussions, though politics has mostly transitioned to the same style these years. When I was young I was frequently involved in religious discussions, believing that there must be some element of the truth there. (Actually, there is, but for now that's actually outside of the scope of this discussion.) I eventually learned that it was possible to go fairly quickly to a small set of premises that the fanatic based their position on. Many of them weren't smart enough to know the basis of their own extremism, but once it was pointed out, then they would concur. Having reached that point, there was no sense in continuing the discussions.
"The Bible is the literal and exact word of God."
"You do not speak Hebrew or Greek. Therefore, how did God design his word to be expressed perfectly in languages that did not yet exist?"
"The Bible is the literal and exact word of God."
Such discussions will always loop at some such point. Therefore I regard them as a waste of time.
I wasn't talking to you. You're a rude jackass, too. Where's the red dot? That's your purpose in my life.
Where's the red dot, you dickhead?
You, too. I really have no interest in arguing with fools. A red dot is all I want from your kind.
Okay, if that isn't adequate, I now call you a worthless motherfucking piece of shit. Your only purpose in my life is to provide a red dot as a "foe". Now go away before I have to remember more of the military jargon.
On the substance, he's probably some kind of Randian or Liberterian, and I really do find them rather vile and not worth wasting time with. The root of their philosophy is that humans are no better than animals, and the only purpose of intelligence is to be a more vicious and successful animal than the "weaker" humans. This is not the place for deeper philosophic discussion, actually, but I regard people as different from each other, but the differences are insignificant in comparison with the similarities. And I do think we are capable of being more than animals and should never give up that objective--though neither can we ignore our animal natures.
I think that's actually a relatively unusual case because the factory owners would prefer to sell all of it at the maximum price possible. I'm thinking of the simple improvement of technology. For example, a genuine handmade ceramic cup might sell for $40, and that value is partly based on its uniqueness and the reputation of the artist. However, if someone takes one such cup and gears a factory around that design, they can produce thousands of almost identical cups for $1. A real expert would be able to detect the signs of mass production, but it's getting harder and harder to do so, and the main marketing effort in this kind of case is just to keep two cups from appearing next to each other in a store, with each labeled as being a unique item.
I regard you as hypocritical and stupid, but that's okay. Reality is terribly persistent, and I remain confident that there is such a thing as intrinsic value even beyond the ability to lie convincingly. I even think there is such a thing as good, and things will continue to get better on average. However, I know better than to attempt to discuss philosophic niceties with fools.
Perhaps I'm jumping to the conclusion, but I think you should designate me as a "foe" and we can merrily ignore each other forever. I really have much better things to do with my time.
Point 1. If the search engines want to retain their value in returning valuable information, then they need to detect rank-promotion techniques and appropriately downrank them. Unfortunately, that will be an unending war.
Point 2. The reason these marketing "people" keep at it is because the fundamental economic system has become broken. It used to be true that 'you got what you pay for', at least roughly. In particular, if you got much less than you paid for, it was pretty easy to determine that the reason was some sort of fraud. Nowadays, it has become very difficult to tell the difference between 'good' stuff that's worth more money and cheap [often Chinese] imitations of the most popular models. At the same time, a nice brand name will allow selling roughly equivalent goods for several times the price. All broken.
The result? All values are becoming totally distorted, and they market presidential candidates and even wars in just the same reality-detached ways. Is the joke on the Chinese for continuing to accept the IOUs?
With regards to Wilipedia, abuses of anonymity are the most serious problem affecting the system, and yet they are not mentioned anywhere in this discussion. At least not in the introduction or in any of the visible posts. (The visibility question would relate to the flaws in /. moderation--and I think that most of those flaws are also related to abuses of anonimity, too, so they're still an aspect of the same problem.)
There are two major arguments made in favor of anonymity, and they both reek like the big dog's m0e, so to speak. The convenience argument is the easiest to deal with. If someone is too lazy or incoompetent to register with a simple and free system, then that person is not worth listening to in the first place.
The other argument for anonymity is that sometimes very important information is possessed by people who could risk retribution for revealing it. This is certainly true, but in that case Wikipedia is not the correct place to be publishing it, since anyone else could change or obfuscate that important information. Actually, if I had something to hide, I'd frequently be searching the Internet to try to find out what leaks or rumors were circulating--and in the case of Wikipedia it would be quite easy to block the information or confuse, or even exaggerate it to make it sound ridiculous (elevating it to a Class 3 lie).
In conclusion, I think anonymity is not the way to defend our personal rights. It is mostly used by people who are simply trying to escape accountability for negative actions.