Essays Low‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages Low This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

An alternative and perhaps funnier way to write this essay could be to reverse it, i.e. "how to out people", a guidebook for spies. --LA2 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I want to write that essay. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split infinitive! Split infinitive! Split infinitive! 131.111.234.143 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's used his real name online since the age of 11, I can tell you the real issue behind "getting outed" has nothing to do with these kinds of details. No matter how much we try, we are never truly anonymous, and we should never feel comfortable simply by using another name. The major outings of Wikipedia have occurred because the person who outed them had some motivation. The lesson we learn is this; if you are going to put yourself in a position on Wikipedia where you will be critizised, or where you will be making important decisions, you need to know that there are risks. Ideally, only people who are not bothered by having that kind of information out in the open (even if they're not making it well known) are probably in the best position, because then there's nothing for these trolls to find. Those who aren't open about those real life details can still gain these higher positions, but must understand the risks. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being out works well if you obey all laws and social conventions and attract no enemies.205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should mention using IRC cloaks if you use IRC. A lot of people who have outed other Wikipedians have often snagged IP info whenever someone joins #wikipedia (or the like) on freenode. -- Ned Scott 08:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really don't want to be outed, this is actually written from the wrong attitude entirely, imo. <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But from whatever attitude you write, note that certain wikipedia editors have made a habit of outing others (in at least one case under the guise of WP:COI). Obviously, outed individuals will be predisposed to returning the favor. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better to write this in a positive tone? It would make the article easier to read.

joycloete (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Hyacinth (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On your suggestion #10, it looks to me that the arbcom decision [1] severely limits the effectiveness of such a strategy. The fact that one editor in a disputed series of articles used a proxy was enough to start an investigation on sockpuppettry. Smallbones (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense should rule here. It is now possible to ask for permission to edit from anotherwise blocked IP if you can establish that you are doing so with good reason and are a constructive editor in good standing. Having that extra permission bit does not in itself out you. Needless to say creating sock puppets and being disruptive in general does not make someone a constructive editor in good standing. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The seemingly important points of avoiding/non-engagement with disputes and declining positions of power aren't listed. Obviously one wants to avoid accidental outings, but one should also avoid intentional ones too. Hyacinth (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the sections above, there are some useful suggestions here, but the overall tone of the article is that concealment is a good thing. For any editor who makes more than casual contributions to Wikipedia, it is likely that an intelligent person can work out the user's real life identity. If you are that worried about being "outed", you should probably not be contributing in the first place.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made that point 1. If you only read Wikipedia (and don't register an account and/or edit), you're fairly safe from being outed, I think. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basic grammar, basic word order: It's "How not to get," not "How to not get." Wikipedia is supposed to spread knowledge, not ignorance. Somebody in authority please put it right; it looks and sounds awful.Hindsighter (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|Oshwah}} @Pharaoh of the Wizards: - please could you expand on your reasoning for rejecting my edit to the page? Amisom (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited as I tagged the wrong person, apologies. Amisom (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]