Post by blissyu2 on Jul 16, 2008 2:43:45 GMT -5
Not many people outside of Wikipedia would know what a "Sock puppet" is (even if they did read Wikipedia's confusing article on it), but anyone familiar with MUDs would know the term "multiplaying". It means that you have more than 1 account in the same MUD and are logging on with 2 or more of them at the same time.
This terminology is important for MUDs, and their derivatives such as MMORPGs, because in most games, multiplaying is illegal.
The reason why MUDs (and MMORPGs and other similar games) make multiplaying illegal is because you can become too powerful in comparison to other players. You can group with yourself, you can gang up against other players, and most importantly you can give good equipment that you found with your high level character to your low level character, such that they can be powerful from a very low level.
The vast majority of chat sites, on the other hand, do not care if you use multiple accounts. After all, what harm could it have? So you confuse a few people, so what? A few people crack down on it, but few places even bother. Talking never hurt anyone. Those that do crack down on it usually do so because they have a game element.
So why would Wikipedia care?
Wikipedia, in essence, is somewhat of a game. Sure, you are building an encyclopaedia, but how you are doing it is an issue. Wikipedia Review user Kato proved with his abuse with the Robert Black (professor) article just how easy it is to cause mass hysteria with two tiny little edits, to the extent that 100s of innocent people were banned, my account was stolen from me on Wikipedia Review, and lies upon lies upon lies were told everywhere. All in the space of 2 1-line edits.
On Wikipedia, if you do things right, you can get a lot of power. You can enhance that power by abusing sock puppets.
The best way to abuse sock puppets is to use them to give yourself more support than you really have. Attack someone (or their perspective) and then have a 2nd sock puppet agree with you. You might also make use of a 3rd sock puppet to violently disagree with you, so as to make the argument seem even more valid (after all, who would agree with someone that is behaving like that)? Most people are sheep and will blindly follow such lies and distortions to believe what you want them to believe.
In addition to abusing sock puppets themselves, you can cause additional problems by accusing someone else of being a sock puppet.
In an AFD, you can simply put in a tag to say that this is the user's first edit, that they are an IP, and so forth. Outright sock puppet accusations help to influence people's opinions too. Most people don't require evidence for such things, and their votes will change.
The worst form of sock puppet abuse comes in the form of banned users.
If a person is banned controversially, the person who makes the ban might be under some pressure about how they did it. One quick and easy way to get around this is to accuse various other people of being their sock puppets.
This has happened many times, where administrators will go around banning various users just on a hunch that they might be some banned user. Some regular level users do it, but it is mostly administrators. It serves to support each other, support the ban, and generally give power to each other.
When doing this, it helps the administrator to look good in the eyes of other administrators. Facts are never checked, as questioning another administrator is seen as a sin, and is never done in the case of sock puppet accusations. But in addition, it makes people feel forced to support their controversial ban.
One really odd thing is that Wikipedia deems it to be private to display anyone's IP address. So they refuse to do this. Most administrators, who can ban IPs and users, cannot even see a user's IP address, which is really odd in the internet world. In most internet societies, administrators can see IPs of every user! Not so on Wikipedia.
On Wikipedia, only a select few people get access to a thing called CheckUser, which basically tells them who belongs to which IP address. They then do some kind of a search to determine whether 2 accounts overlapped.
If they did, they announce that they are proven to be sock puppets!
Whilst in some rare occasions they release the evidence, usually they don't. Wikipedia has a strange privacy policy that forbids such things. Even in a case where the user themselves asks for the evidence to be displayed, they refuse to do so.
Yet other administrators say "See? It's proven that they were a sock puppet" when it is not even remotely proven.
The fact is that most people use ISPs that are shared by many people. Some ISPs have tens of thousands or even millions of customers. How can Wikipedia say that it is proven when it only proves that they are 2 people who use the same ISP? But this is what they do.
Wikipedia could do what most games do and say that if you are using the same IP and have some evidence that you are 2 entirely different people, then you can play, but not grouped together. So 2 brothers who live in the same house can login together but not play with each other.
Every day sock puppet allegations run rife on Wikipedia. The vast majority of them are false.
And the stupidest part of it all is that if they are really concerned about preventing people from using 2 accounts, they can simply do what Wikipedia Review does - just require that people register with a non-free e-mail address. That doesn't invade privacy even (such as Citizendium's requirement that you use your real name and prove it is you via driver's licence photo and passport). It is simple to do and Wikipedia could easily do it. So why don't they?
Probably Wikipedia began with an idea that they would allow multiple accounts, and allow people to do what they liked so long as it was constructive. As things went on, they became more and more hardlined. Thus right now, there are loopholes galore, and administrators now have far more power than they would virtually anywhere else.
An administrator on Wikipedia is like an immortal on a MUD. Like an immortal, they can attack anyone, kill them, steal their stuff, ban them, create new areas, and do absolutely anything to their account and their playing experience.
Unlike a MUD, Wikipedia does absolutely nothing when an immortal does this. There is always an excuse somewhere to say that it was okay.
There are good administrators of course, but the problem isn't the people who are there. The problem is the rules. Most particularly, the problem is sock puppets.
I myself only ever used 2 accounts on Wikipedia, the 2nd one after I was forgiven by the person who had banned me initially (but for political reasons could not say so publicly). Yet I am accused of new sock puppets every day.
New false accusations were added to the list just today. One of the accounts registered in April 2007, during a 12 month period from July 2006-July 2007 when I did not even have internet access, something copiously verified on Wikipedia Review.
Yet they claim that they have solid proof (although they refuse to publish it)!
Well, sorry folks, but I have solid proof that that couldn't possibly be me!
All to rubbish my name, to make them feel good.
This terminology is important for MUDs, and their derivatives such as MMORPGs, because in most games, multiplaying is illegal.
The reason why MUDs (and MMORPGs and other similar games) make multiplaying illegal is because you can become too powerful in comparison to other players. You can group with yourself, you can gang up against other players, and most importantly you can give good equipment that you found with your high level character to your low level character, such that they can be powerful from a very low level.
The vast majority of chat sites, on the other hand, do not care if you use multiple accounts. After all, what harm could it have? So you confuse a few people, so what? A few people crack down on it, but few places even bother. Talking never hurt anyone. Those that do crack down on it usually do so because they have a game element.
So why would Wikipedia care?
Wikipedia, in essence, is somewhat of a game. Sure, you are building an encyclopaedia, but how you are doing it is an issue. Wikipedia Review user Kato proved with his abuse with the Robert Black (professor) article just how easy it is to cause mass hysteria with two tiny little edits, to the extent that 100s of innocent people were banned, my account was stolen from me on Wikipedia Review, and lies upon lies upon lies were told everywhere. All in the space of 2 1-line edits.
On Wikipedia, if you do things right, you can get a lot of power. You can enhance that power by abusing sock puppets.
The best way to abuse sock puppets is to use them to give yourself more support than you really have. Attack someone (or their perspective) and then have a 2nd sock puppet agree with you. You might also make use of a 3rd sock puppet to violently disagree with you, so as to make the argument seem even more valid (after all, who would agree with someone that is behaving like that)? Most people are sheep and will blindly follow such lies and distortions to believe what you want them to believe.
In addition to abusing sock puppets themselves, you can cause additional problems by accusing someone else of being a sock puppet.
In an AFD, you can simply put in a tag to say that this is the user's first edit, that they are an IP, and so forth. Outright sock puppet accusations help to influence people's opinions too. Most people don't require evidence for such things, and their votes will change.
The worst form of sock puppet abuse comes in the form of banned users.
If a person is banned controversially, the person who makes the ban might be under some pressure about how they did it. One quick and easy way to get around this is to accuse various other people of being their sock puppets.
This has happened many times, where administrators will go around banning various users just on a hunch that they might be some banned user. Some regular level users do it, but it is mostly administrators. It serves to support each other, support the ban, and generally give power to each other.
When doing this, it helps the administrator to look good in the eyes of other administrators. Facts are never checked, as questioning another administrator is seen as a sin, and is never done in the case of sock puppet accusations. But in addition, it makes people feel forced to support their controversial ban.
One really odd thing is that Wikipedia deems it to be private to display anyone's IP address. So they refuse to do this. Most administrators, who can ban IPs and users, cannot even see a user's IP address, which is really odd in the internet world. In most internet societies, administrators can see IPs of every user! Not so on Wikipedia.
On Wikipedia, only a select few people get access to a thing called CheckUser, which basically tells them who belongs to which IP address. They then do some kind of a search to determine whether 2 accounts overlapped.
If they did, they announce that they are proven to be sock puppets!
Whilst in some rare occasions they release the evidence, usually they don't. Wikipedia has a strange privacy policy that forbids such things. Even in a case where the user themselves asks for the evidence to be displayed, they refuse to do so.
Yet other administrators say "See? It's proven that they were a sock puppet" when it is not even remotely proven.
The fact is that most people use ISPs that are shared by many people. Some ISPs have tens of thousands or even millions of customers. How can Wikipedia say that it is proven when it only proves that they are 2 people who use the same ISP? But this is what they do.
Wikipedia could do what most games do and say that if you are using the same IP and have some evidence that you are 2 entirely different people, then you can play, but not grouped together. So 2 brothers who live in the same house can login together but not play with each other.
Every day sock puppet allegations run rife on Wikipedia. The vast majority of them are false.
And the stupidest part of it all is that if they are really concerned about preventing people from using 2 accounts, they can simply do what Wikipedia Review does - just require that people register with a non-free e-mail address. That doesn't invade privacy even (such as Citizendium's requirement that you use your real name and prove it is you via driver's licence photo and passport). It is simple to do and Wikipedia could easily do it. So why don't they?
Probably Wikipedia began with an idea that they would allow multiple accounts, and allow people to do what they liked so long as it was constructive. As things went on, they became more and more hardlined. Thus right now, there are loopholes galore, and administrators now have far more power than they would virtually anywhere else.
An administrator on Wikipedia is like an immortal on a MUD. Like an immortal, they can attack anyone, kill them, steal their stuff, ban them, create new areas, and do absolutely anything to their account and their playing experience.
Unlike a MUD, Wikipedia does absolutely nothing when an immortal does this. There is always an excuse somewhere to say that it was okay.
There are good administrators of course, but the problem isn't the people who are there. The problem is the rules. Most particularly, the problem is sock puppets.
I myself only ever used 2 accounts on Wikipedia, the 2nd one after I was forgiven by the person who had banned me initially (but for political reasons could not say so publicly). Yet I am accused of new sock puppets every day.
New false accusations were added to the list just today. One of the accounts registered in April 2007, during a 12 month period from July 2006-July 2007 when I did not even have internet access, something copiously verified on Wikipedia Review.
Yet they claim that they have solid proof (although they refuse to publish it)!
Well, sorry folks, but I have solid proof that that couldn't possibly be me!
All to rubbish my name, to make them feel good.
