Talk:Anonymity

message: --by that great author, Anonymous
The article as written left a lot to be desired. I've attempted a rewrite using most of the information in the previous article. I think it's a lot better now. Hope you all agree. --Golfhaus 21:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hi@Beland 2400:AC40:709:E88D:D5CB:32AF:5C8E:F3C9 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Done. -- Beland 00:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: I recently redirected anonymous speech and anonymous publication to this article since they overlapped and could easily be covered here as well.  There may or may not be some information that needs merged from those articles. Peyna 17:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's how information got lost. This article still doesn't cover what anonymous speech means. --Abdull (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incoming redirects 

message: The link to wikiquote points to a page of anonymous quotes, not quotes on anonymity. Does wikiquote have such a list? --BigChicken 10:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquote link 

message: There ought to be more about charity.  All the article says about charity at present is:
Many acts of charity are performed anonymously, as well, as benefactors do not wish, for whatever reason, to be acknowledged for their action.
The phrases do not wish... to be acknowledged and for whatever reason can carry much implied POV I fear.  "Whatever reason" may suggest that the usual reasons are likely to be so idiosyncratic or secret that it's no use generalizing about them.  To the contrary, anonymous charity has long been a widespread and durable moral precept of many ethical and religious systems, as well as being in practice a widespread human activity.  The present text seems oblivious to this fact.
Indeed the text is biased as to the uses of anonymity -- mainly it seems to only regard anonymity negatively as a shield, or means of avoiding harm for those who fear it.  The article neglects anonymity as a positive tool to practice, demonstrate and promote various virtues both civic and personal (e.g. humility, unselfishness, commonweal, foresight, kindness, etc.), or to starve certain personal and societal vices of appetite, (e.g. pride, vanity, greed, etc), or to achieve benign and practical goals that might otherwise be impossible.
"To be acknowledged" implies a POV that benign action normally should be humanly acknowledged, an egotistical and controversial tenet.  For saints and holy men all human actions are immediately (though perhaps inscrutably) acknowledged before eyes that miss nothing, compared to which mere human favor means little.  For the pragmatic benefactor anonymous good deeds avoid potentially fatal dangers of class distinction, prejudice, personal suspicions of venal interest, while tending to promote a general goodwill or mindshare, etc.
Which is not to say that the present text about wiley crooks, spies and malevolent forces isn't interesting and appropriate to the topic -- just that taken alone it's incomplete to an extreme.  --AC 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity 

message: I just think it is odd someone has added a link to the article:
"If you need to get anonymous proxy you can get one here : www.proxygeneration.com"
After looking at the site--which has only a meager 300 registered users--I'm fairly certain that the article was edited by either an administrator of the site, or someone who nonetheless wanted to attract more people to the website. With that in mind, I'm removing this sentence from the article--of which it should also be noted is out of place in the article: the line preceeding it states "There are many reasons why a person might ... become anonymous." ; After the advertisement, the section then continues to state possible reasons to do this, rather than a method.
Bonekhan 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising? 

message: <I>Brittney Carrington and Kevin Webb are a few people in the military that have anonymous means of working.</I>
Vandalism? Or just someone thinking that everyone knows who they mean? Kay Dekker (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably vandalism. I took it out; if someone has a source and can express the thought comprehensibly, they can restore it.--Kineticman (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who the heck are Brittney Carrington and Kevin Webb?

message: The article could as well include the anonymity of superheroes and the why and what about it.
Just a thought.
145.18.110.193 (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superheroes 

message: internet + anonymity. It ought to be mentioned (or at least linked) in this article. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "theory"

message: 1.) This, the last part of the article ends with the sentence "The authorities could then proceed to beat Alice and Bob until one of them owns up to the crime."
Well, it's a well-known fact that if you beat people up, they're eligable to confess every crime known to man, from burning down Rome some 2,000 years ago to being the one who sold Jimi Hendrix heroin. Therefore, I don't think the "mathematics of anonymity" works on this here example, since there's an X factor that can't be computed exactly.
2.) This very same article assumes that either Bob, Carol or Alice emptied the safe, because they had the only keys; "An example: Suppose that only Alice, Bob, and Carol have the keys to a bank safe and that, one day, the contents of the safe are missing (without the lock being violated)."
How do we know there wasn't an old - or illegally made - copy circulating that someone else (Ted, for instance) had access to, and that HE is the perpetrator (see "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_%26_Carol_%26_Ted_%26_Alice")?
Besserwissern (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  On 'Mathematics of anonymity' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Anonymity. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.globalvoicesonline.org/wiki/index.php/Recommendations
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anonymity. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209000122/https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/430/vol5_no4_art16.pdf?sequence=1 to https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/430/vol5_no4_art16.pdf?sequence=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622025741/http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/vol5/a16Ringland.html to http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol5/a16Ringland.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first several sections of the article have either no references cited or only one or two. Considering some of these sections contain substantial amounts of information, it should be cited. --MooCow1 (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  sections lacking references 

message: I think the page can benefit on expanding more on the anonymity + charity section, perhaps by including popular crowdfunding websites like Youcaring or Gofundme. 
Xkwhvzde (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymity + Charity  

message: When a book's author is not known, is the property of "anonymity" best applied to the book or to its author? Many of the Wikipedia articles on the various chapters of John's Gospel state in the lede that "the author of the book containing this chapter is anonymous", whereas in several of the articles on the chapters of Luke's Gospel and other New Testament works, the statement is made that "the book containing this chapter is anonymous". Which is the better or more correct usage? BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books and their authors 

message: deseo entrar ala Deep web necesitó comprar un carnet de identidad 213.173.36.101 (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  JOSÉ DANIEL