Wikipedia's policy to allow powerful anonymous administrators controlling the content of the world's biggest encyclopedia is shockingly irresponsible.

I used to find it surprising that the media does not report this. But now that I know how corrupt the media is...it doesn't.

In other words, if the media were honest, they would be taking Wikipedia to task for allowing totally anonymous people to make extremely consequential decisions about what is passed off as knowledge.

But I think that the media prefers it that way, just like Wikipedia does.

Anonymity paired with great responsibility—that's a recipe for certain corruption.

By the way, I have no issues with anonymity online in general. In fact, it's very important that we preserve the right to anonymity online.

But anonymity in knowledge projects is very problematic.

See an old speech of mine: http://larrysanger.org/2008/03/a-defense-of-modest-real-name-requirements/

Poll!

Should we still give Wikipedia money even if they refuse to disclose the identities of their top editorial decision-makers, instead preferring to keep them anonymous and thus under the control of—who knows?