Gov/en/Portal:Trust-Safety/Anonymous-Editing: Difference between revisions

(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 1:

{{ExpertIntro|We are heading towards a model where anonymous contributions face strict limitations in legally-bound platforms. This hypothesis proposes that while Wikimedia's open-editing principle maximizes participation, WikiDeal's endorsement-based governance requires identity verification to maintain contract integrity and regulatory compliance. The emerging trend suggests selective exceptions—such as whistleblower channels—can preserve privacy while preserving accountability.}}

{{KidsIntro|this page looks at when people edit WikiDeal without giving their name, and how to keep it useful while stopping mischief.}}

~~{{NotApproved}}~~

🔒 '''Admin view:''' Core analysis page — editable by administrators only.

Line 114:

Argument 4 — Reputation System Dependency

WikiDeal's long-term trust Infrastructure depends on reputation scoring: contributors earn credibility through consistent, validated contributions over time. Anonymous contributions cannot feed into this system, cannot be rewarded through ~~Miles~~ or ~~Credits~~, and cannot be penalized if problematic. They are, from a system perspective, untrackable noise.

WikiDeal's long-term trust Infrastructure depends on reputation scoring: contributors earn credibility through consistent, validated contributions over time. Anonymous contributions cannot feed into this system, cannot be rewarded through Karma tokens or Rewards, and cannot be penalized if problematic. They are, from a system perspective, untrackable noise.

Argument 5 — Context is Different from Wikipedia

Line 152:

This analysis represents the current position of the WikiDeal governance team. If you believe the conclusion is wrong — or if you can identify a use case where anonymous editing would provide more benefit than risk — you are encouraged to submit a formal Open Call proposal.

The community can reconsider any policy decision through the Open ~~Call~~ process. Challenge this analysis with evidence and argumentation.

The community can reconsider any policy decision through the Open Calls process. Challenge this analysis with evidence and argumentation.

[[Category:Migration June 2026]]