Grants:IdeaLab/Verify identity of the user
Project idea
[edit]What is the problem you're trying to solve?
[edit]The main theme of this campaign is to generate solutions to stop the harassment of Wiki-medians on Wikimedia and its sister projects. This idea of verifying the user as further explained in the following What is your solution? section may put the users on a check before they harass the other user.
What is your solution?
[edit]Wikimedia must identify the users i.e a process must be adopted to verify the identity of the users before their initial edits are accepted or while creating the account with their respective ID proofs according to their country. The user's demographic details must match the ID proof. This information may be kept confidential within the Wikimedia. This information may be given access to the who have successfully signed the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information or for better privacy a separate higher user access level should be introduced to whom this identity information will be available. If still it has concerns with privacy, only the Wikimedia staff can be given access this information.
Number of accounts to an person must be strictly confined to one and that too a verified one. This makes Wikimedia more safer and reliable. A declaration must also be taken from the user stating that he/she is solely responsible for the actions conducted by him/her. Edits by IP user must be considered because most of the cases in harassment are IP or new users i.e non auto confirmed users. By this verification process the harassment under this category can be reduced greatly.
However, a strict set guidelines must be employed for the privacy of the user data i.e the measures for the security of the user data (the information about their identity) must be securely protected without fail. One of the famous online job portal Freelancer uses this type of policy to verify its users for reliance. Their Know Your Customer and Identity Verification Policy is available at KYC Policy of Freelancer. Similarly we can adopt guidelines by taking this as an example. This information may be used to stop extreme levels of harassment cases.
For any further clarifications/doubts regarding this idea, please feel free to contact me through the email-id I have provided in the contact email section.
Get involved
[edit]About the idea creator
[edit]Wishes to make Wiki the best place and primary choice for any encyclopedic purpose and that can be only done by users. Presently, pending changes reviewer on English Wikipedia.
Participants
[edit]- Designer I would like to give my full participation in this IDEA as its emphasises on added security measures to fight unexpected vandalism on Wikipedia. Denver20 (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Endorsements
[edit]- I had the same idea! Emrys66 (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is clear that when the identity of users is verified, people will take their reputation into consideration before harassing someone. Csisc (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Anonymity is, for some people, an incentive for irresponsible behavior. Paulo rsmenezes (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- This would also help manage sock puppetry. GoneWilde (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- This can be done without a full identification of the user, it is for many purposes sufficient to check if the user account is unique. See also m:Grants:IdeaLab/Cross-account measure of uniqueness. — Jeblad 16:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
[edit]- I get the idea but this cuts both ways. Well-intentioned people value their anonymity and can be harassed if their identity is known. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @DaltonCastle: Yes, anonymity is the best policy. The identity details will be only available to the admin or the media-wiki staff or some special group. It would be protected under the Wikipedia confidentiality agreement. The data of the user who harasses the other will be accessed by the respective team when required. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- The only problem is that no system is 100% safe and Wikipedia have editors who are in totalitarian governments or are in a situation where their editing habits puts their lives and/or jobs in danger. Many people in that situation would rather not take the risk and would stop editing and/or just not sign up in the first place. If possible they might give false names, which would nullify the purpose of this proposal. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose Seems impossible, luckily. Implies a severe form of control of users and will not help stop harassment but could increase it to a higher level, and in real life on top of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe McNeill (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)- Strong oppose This would greatly endanger people's privacy. Even with a good goal in mind, privacy should not be compromised, as it will result in people not contributing, and, above all, in even less privacy in a time where every legal entity is already trying to follow your every step. Purrsh (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Without accountability for who grants editing from the provided identification who's to say the information won't be given to hackers to call in SWAT raids? Additionally, there is no way there will be enough trained and morally upstanding individuals to cooperate with the 100+ internet using countries in the world. CR055H41RZ (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Expand your idea
[edit]Would a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation help make your idea happen? You can expand this idea into a grant proposal.