Talk:Nymwars

WP:NEO

I would vote against deleting due to NEO. While new, the term is unique and identifiable, and not the sole creation of the page author. The term is used to organize information about this topic in a number of notable, high-profile sources, e.g.:

• http://www.zdnet.com/topics/nymwars
• http://boingboing.net/2011/08/20/understanding-the-nym-wars.html

-- Metahacker (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur. --Skud (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the topic isn't the word, but the controversy, WP:NEO would at worst argue for renaming, not deleting the article in that case. It would be possible to argue the notability of the controversy, but I personally believe it's notable enough, as per the above. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] -- a few of these don't use the term, but that's irrelevant to whether an article on the controversy should exist. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur as well. Although new and currently focused on one social site, it seems reasonable to anticipate future applications would benefit from historical records. Filterbob (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the controversy about everyone hating the new Facebook timeline get it's own Wikipedia page? What about the lost Incoming stream on Google+ (which I feel is far more important than Nymwars). I think it's the height of arrogance to believe a minor nerdrage about a social network's policy deserves it's own Wikipedia page, and is encyclopedic. At most, it's deserving of a bullet in a controversy section on Google+'s Wikipedia page. I'm sure someone pitched a fit about a MySpace change at one time or another, but do we care now? Is this something we'll care about in five or ten years? Social networks come and go, so do their policies. (EDIT: tl;dr: This shouldn't be trashed for WP:NEO, but it should definitely be trashed for WP:SOAP) Ocdtrekkie (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Designing for social norms (or How Not to Create Angry Mobs)

In this article, danah boyd explains why a “real names” policy doesn’t stop trolls. In her work with teens, she saw that everyday “bullying” occurs among people who know exactly who each other is on Facebook. The identities of many trolls are known. But that doesn’t solve the problem. What matters is how the social situation is configured, the norms about what’s appropriate, and the mechanisms by which people can regulate them. Therefore, to impose the "real names policy " can't be seen as a solution, it is bound to entail a reaction of rejection, people don't like to see removed a part of what they consider to be their fredom. Moreover, the "real names" policy does not obey any real social norm. Goffman in "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life" sees a connection between the kinds of acts that people put on in their daily life and theatrical performances. Thus, it can be assumed that the use of a pseudo on the internet is the equivalent of the "masks" we put on in real life, according to Goffman. --Ol.Martin_TPT 14/11/2012

I've roughly edited the page to include an overview of what's been happening and some links to sources. They're not in full citation style though... if someone wanted to clean them up and make them use the Citation templates and put access dates and all that, that would be great. --Skud (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference of all the articles

I've tried to add the full reference of the NymWars articles but it's been reverted calling it WP:EL or WP:NOTLINK or WP:IF-WE-PUT-IT-IN-THE-DELETIONISTS-MAY-WIN, so I'm inserting it here for the interest of the readers.

• Nymwars article timeline (continuously updated)

Peace. --grin ✎ 22:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead Link

Cite note # 14 is no longer available. I'm not in the habit of editing pages because I tend to be auto-reverted when I make corrections for some reason -Mel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.154.165 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm marking it dead. Should have had a quote in the cite, and been archived. I did an search in the San Jose Mercury archive site, which didn't find it. Even so, the archive is behind a paywall, which means it can't be used. Lentower (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It can too be used. Stories in newspapers are perfectly valid sources regardless of whether they can still be found online. I removed the link, because it is indeed dead, and the (somewhat overdone) deadlink tags. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Be useful if there were the parameters usually used for print sources, e.g. Volume, Number, Page(s). Each reader should be aware a source has issues, without clicking through to the References section, which is why such templates should be added where the citation is used, and in the References section. Lentower (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

the web is dynamic and articles can come and go. Should a citation be removed just because someone can't access it anymore ? If a book referenced another book that had since gone out of publication, would it be right to remove that reference ? Seems like doing so could easily let large media simply attrit controversial subjects by changing their links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.164.168 (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Telemediengesetz

I don't speak much German, but a Google translation of the Telemediengesetz law says that anonymous access should be allowed where possible and reasonable - this doesn't sound like an absolute requirement, like this article currently suggests. Is there a third-party source on Telemediengesetz, preferably in English, which is clear on this point? 81.142.107.230 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Planned Changes

Hi, I'm going to be adding to this page, mostly in the "criticism" section since that section could do with some expanding. In fact, all of the sections could do with some fleshing out, and I'm thinking of including Google's recent reactions to the backlash. I'm pretty new to Wiki editing, so feel free to correct me when I make mistakes. Cheers! BethHuff (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just make sure you stick to reliable sources. There is a lot of criticism and reaction that we can't really cover because it's only in blogs and other unreliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep that in mind BethHuff (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

BethHuff and I are both in a graduate course on knowledge and information, and we're trying to make some constructive Wikipedia edits as part of that course. I'm going to add to the criticism section of this article, using references from 'reliable' media but reflecting the views shared more broadly by critics of the Google+ policy. Your comments and edits are welcome and encouraged. Elsiewolfe (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

CNet resource

Google+ updates policy to address identity crisis by Jay Greene January 23, 2012 3:06 PM PST ... "The company wanted to create a service without pseudonyms or impersonation. But the service, which now claims 90 million users, had plenty of people sign up who are better known by some other identity than their real name. Google has suspended many of those accounts, much to their users' chargin. Google is changing the policy to "broaden support" for some pseudonyms, Bradley Horowitz, a co-leader of Google+, wrote this afternoon in a Google+ post. Now Google+ will allow users to be known by "established" pseudonyms, such as Madonna. Google will be the final arbiter of what is established."

99.181.152.120 (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but do we have secondary sources interpreting for us what that really means? It's clearly not "anyone can use any pseudonym they wish" and we should try to avoid committing original research in trying to interpret it ourselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Name of article

The name of this article needs to be changed. I've read news accounts of the controversy many times and have never heard it even referred to once as "nymwars". If certain online communities have decided to call it that, great, but it's by no means a generally accepted term, which is what Wikipedia article naming conventions demand we use. DreamGuy (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions? Lentower (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The name is certainly used in some mainstream articles: e.g.

• Swift, Mike (November 16, 2011), ""Nymwars" debate over online identity explodes" (subscription required), Oakland Tribune.
• Mullally, Una (January 30, 2012), "Facebook floats, but has social networking passed its peak?" (subscription required), Irish Times, Swartz talks about "nymwars", the debate stemming from policies of social networks that instruct those signing up to services to use their real names, raising issues of privacy and identity.
• Zimmer, Ben (December 18, 2011), "What we talked about in 2011 ; The Word; The year in language" (subscription required), Boston Globe, Meanwhile, on Google Plus, the policy of insisting that "plussers" register with their real names precipitated the nymwars, pitched by those who prefer to lurk behind pseudonyms.

In any case, there's no point in saying this is a bad name without supplying an alternative. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How about something like Google pseudonymity controversy? That would be a lot clearer than the current name; I accept the term 'nymwars' was used for this topic in some areas, but if you haven't heard of it it's pretty opaque. I'm not sure it's widely used enough to be the WP:COMMONNAME either. Robofish (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

NY Times source

An editor with more time, could add from this excellent reliable source http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/technology/dont-be-evil-but-dont-miss-the-tech-train.html Lentower (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems too far off-topic, to me. I think this article should be about the pseudonym vs real name issue, specifically, but that article is about general criticism of Google for other issues and doesn't even mention user names. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Generalize - it's not just about Google+.

The current article speaks as if Google+ was the only instance of this issue. All this has happened before, all this will happen again. A predecessor war was Blizzard's RealID, which exposes the name on the player's credit card, and is mandatory to use some game features (cross-game chat) and was nearly made mandatory to post on discussion forums. http://technologizer.com/2010/07/09/4-lessons-from-blizzards-real-id-snafu/ Fundamentally, the nymwars are about Online Disinhibition Effect and many sites are running to it as a band-aid. (The problem is, exposing real names doesn't fix this. People are simply jackbats anyway. Oops, OR.) 174.62.117.228 (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nymwars. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100709053633/http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25626109041&sid=3000&pageNo=1 to http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25626109041&sid=3000&pageNo=1

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Google+ Shutting Down

Should that be incorporated into the article? Should this be framed as something that happened in the past? --FeldBum (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there any connection made by reliable sources between the shutdown and the nymwars? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)