Talk:Pseudonymity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origin[edit]

I believe. "pseudonymity" is derived only from "pseudonym." "Pseudonym" implies a degree of anonymity on its own. "Pseudonymity" and "anonymity" merely share the word root nym. "Ano-" means "without name" (essentially), "pseudo" means "false." I marked it as needing citation, and believe that this should be changed unless someone can provide more information stating otherwise. Darkgroup (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Do[edit]

  • I believe this page should briefly discuss some of the proposed architectures that would establish cross-site verifiable pseudonyms, enabling reputation building while assuring anonymity.Bryan 13:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be links, at least, to pseudonymity in the law (for example, copyright law).Bryan 15:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also: pseudonymity in science, pseudonymity and authority? Thinking in particular of the whole Bourbaki affair (our article on it seems to completely avoid talking about the authorship motivations)... --Fastfission 03:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it confusing that the sentence in "Examples", paragraph 4 that reads: "Their views are supported by laws in some nations (such as Canada) that guarantee citizens a right to speak using a pseudonym."[1] references a case example that is NOT Canadian, but rather a legal case settled in the United States of America, Washington to be exact, where First Amendment rights to anonymity are pleaded. Should the sentence not then read "some nations (such as the United States of America)"?
  • This research could enhance the understanding of pseudonymity and contribution for online collaborating and decision making groups meta:Research:Anonymity and conformity over the net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsikerdekis (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pipesdreams (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASR[edit]

I don't want to go ahead and delete half the article, but there are several sections, here, that are huge self references to the Wikipedia project. --Q Canuck 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete half the article. Or any of the article. Without seeming to be presumtious or insulting in any way, may I ask, won't you please just study it? This is actually a very good article. What you perceive as self references are, in fact, attempts to explain the unfamiliar by discussing the familiar.This is a well-known writing technique that is often employed with material that some people find technically difficult. I hope you can see this, and by the way, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia and caring about its quality!Bryan 03:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying I'm going to delete half the article. I'm saying someone knowledgeable about the subject should go through, and find a few new examples. Scanning through the article, there are only a couple of examples of pseudonymity that don't mention Wikipedia, and only the Wikipedia examples go into any great detail.
I don't think it's appropriate. This article is about pseudonymity, not pseudonymity as it is acheived on Wikipedia. This topic is not limited to Wikipedia, and isn't even limited to online applications. This article could be discussing pen names used by authors, bloggers, and any number of other topics, but instead is only discussing Wikipedia.
I think if an article like wiki can be written with only a few references to Wikipedia, the same can be done with this article, which is far less directly related to the project. --Q Canuck 13:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are plenty of better examples than Wikipedia. It's not really a self-reference, but it is a non-neutral point of view. — Omegatron 01:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References in Pop Culture[edit]

Several sci-fi authors, notably William Gibson, have written about the hidden identities in cyberspace. Should there be a section for this? — Loadmaster 22:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pseudonymity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pseudonymity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Pseudonymity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from "Pseudonym"[edit]

It was just proposed [1][2] by Omegatron. I'm inclined to agree on the concept. However, I think readers interested in the topic are much more likely to look for an article named "Pseudonym" rather than "Pseudonymity", and in the spirit of WP:Common, "Pseudonmity" should be merged into "Pseudonym". Also, at a glance, "Pseudonym" seems to be a better article than "Pseudonymity". Jc3s5h (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC) [Linked article names 06:18, 2 August 2020 UT][reply]

I'm fine with either. Just that we have anonymity so I thought pseudonymity was in the same style. — Omegatron (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging, and I agree with Jc3s5h that "pseudonym" should be the main article and "pseudonymity" should be the redirect. (Tbh, I'd never heard of the nominalization of "pseudonym" before I saw the article … ) If there's consensus to do this, I'm happy to help with the content transfer—looks like it could take a bit of doing, given the size of both articles. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Style for merged article?[edit]

In #Proposed merge from "Pseudonym" above, a consensus is emerging to merge the articles, and to merge from "Pseudonymity" to "Pseudonym". I think it would be helpful for anyone working on getting either article for the merge to agree on some style items. I offer these suggestions.

  • The article that would remain, "Pseudonym", should have its existing style retained as much as practical.
  • The first citation added to "Pseudonym" did not follow any recognized style guide that I'm aware of, so the citation style should be up for grabs.
    • Standard templates seems a reasonable solution (and less confusing for any editors who come along post-merge)? Bit of a pain to convert existing cites, but it's not a race after all. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first edit to introduce a date used the day month year format, so I suggest we use that, both in general, and within citations.
  • Trying a script conversion to American English, or to Commonwealth English, shows the article uses predominantly American English, so I suggest that continue.
    • One potential concern re dates and spelling style: American English and dmy dates don't mix. If we're using AmEng, we should use mdy dates; if we're using Oxford spelling/some other Commonwealth variant, we should use dmy dates. I suggest dmy dates and Oxford spelling, since it seems the most ecumenical for this non-regionally specific article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jc3s5h (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I prefer to have dmy dates go with British spelling and mdy dates go with American spelling. I am not a fan of Oxford spelling, just because not very many editors are used to it, so it's hard to get anything right on the first try. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Seems like converting English usage is harder than converting dates, so maybe it makes sense to use AmEng and mdy dates, if AmEng is the predominant form used in the article? No real preference though. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • American English and mdy dates are fine with me. I request any other editors with an opinion to chime in promptly so we can get started. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure?[edit]

Another thought/question for @Jc3s5h and Omegatron (and any other interested party): is it typical to merge by section, so: (1) cut section from Pseudonymity; (2) paste to Pseudonym; and (3) rejigger Pseudonym accordingly? That seems a reasonable way to do it, but I've never done one of these before so wanted to check. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not experienced at merging. I think I did one, and that was several years ago. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Merging, especially the WP:MERGETEXT section.
A key point is to copy the section as-is with an edit summary indicating which article it came from, so anyone who cares who contributed to the article can figure it out (with a lot of effort). This satisfies the attribution requirement in the compyright licenses that editors agree to when they contribute. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I usually do. Copy one chunk at a time, next to an existing chunk that covers the same information, save it (with a helpful summary that points to the original article), and then start deleting redundant content and combining related content in subsequent edits. — Omegatron (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pseudonymity&oldid=1203219977"