This sounds to me like a way to control the information and points of view obtained from various sources. Does the person need to be educated, with a degree, in order to be considered a reliable source, or can anyone put in opinions to the contrary of wide-held beliefs on a subject?
For example, global warming could be contributed to human activity. The government has long denied it, but has recently changed its opinion. Would the opinions on this website also change with what our government assumes to be true? Our world history has shown that Earth goes through periods of intense warming and cooling. The Ice Age has its name for a reason, that being that the periods surrounding it showed a lack in the abundance of it. Does that mean global warming does or doesn't exist, and will people be censored for providing doubt with their arguments?
I believe that taking away the anonymity of its users is not going to solve very much, and possibly make it much worse. A school could demand that you can't use Wikipedia as a source, but everyone's "evidence" is just opinion based on the facts anyway. Who cares if there are those juvenile enough to deface what others have written, because it will be exposed and corrected at some point. I think it's just highlighting a problem we have in the online world, and that it's solutions are going to add to the problem by providing a false sense of security from flawed reasoning.
In addition, with me giving credence to conspiracy, exposing people's names in order to have more reliable debate may put them in danger. Could someone end up getting killed for their beliefs, even for simply disagreeing?
~Vapur OJI Rupy
Edited by Vapur, 12 April 2007 - 04:11 PM.