On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:23:47 +0000 Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 01:00:57PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Well, trust and respect can grow for a fake identity (nick or nym),
> > if this fake identity is used consistently in time.
>
> It shouldn't. At any point they could suddenly go insane; there's
> nothing to discourage them, as they can simply switch to a different
> throwaway identity.
Apparently, we disagree.
Building a reputation is a long and slow process. Destroying it can be
instead a matter of a single betrayal of the trust you gained.
I don't think many people want to engage in such a long loop cycle,
unless there's really much to dishonestly gain when the trust is broken.
But, when there are big interests involved, I tend to not trust people
so much, even if they use a traceable e-mail address...
[...]
> > Well, if you mean that anonymous and pseudonymous contributions are
> > more difficult to handle copyright-wise, it's true.
> > But, for instance, would you treat a (reproducible) bug report by an
> > anonymous sender as less valuable?
>
> I would treat a patch by an anonymous sender as less valuable. It
> requires considerable scrutiny, because there's a good chance it
> contains an exploit. With a patch from a person with a known identity,
> there's not much chance of it being malicious.
I was talking about a bug report that points out a reproducible issue,
not about a sent patch.
Do you ignore bugs pointed out by anonymous senders?
I wouldn't.
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpXYJHfY693w.pgp
Description: PGP signature