zlacker

>>elsewh+(OP)
I can see worrying about harassment. "Inclusivity", though? (From the tone of the press release, they mean race and gender, not article subjects.) Wikipedia editors are anonymous unless they don't want to be. How can anyone tell?

>>Animat+L2
> Wikipedia editors are anonymous unless they don't want to be. How can anyone tell?

Anonymity and privacy are of course highly helpful but editors should be free to disclose facts about themselves if they so choose. I think we can all agree that incivility and harassment can be a major issue in such cases.

>>zozbot+e6
On the other hand, I don't think Wikipedia editors should ever disclose facts about themselves. Ideally, you want anonymized contributions to ensure that the contribution is actually correct and correctly sourced and isn't just "waved through" because others recognize the name of the editor, or because they've said that they are Professor Xyz.

>>luckyl+fb
The reason to reveal though is used to bolster the contribution by allowing them to declare any edit they do not approve of to be based on their identity rather than the facts of the article.

This is very common method and actually presented in writing as how to take over any system. You deny a voice to others by presenting the claim that any opposition is based wholly on identity issues.