Talk:Digital identity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 28 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morozok7, Arwa.Moh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

All...

I am working - off and on - on a rewrite with the following in mind....

• the reader's experience will be better if the article is more focused. Digital identity as a technical requirement of computer interactions can be described in terms that require no prior familiarity with identity and access management or computer security. As it is written, the article includes a lot of material that describes the broader workings of identity and access management technologies and systems. That knowledge is well covered in many other articles and I plan to pay some attention to indicating to the reader where related information and knowledge may be of interest and providing links to the appropriate articles. Digital identity is only a factor of identity and access management systems and architectures.The article should provide a clear explanation of what digital identities are - for information systems - why they are needed and what functions they enable - mainly identification (computational haecceity and quiddity - two terms I do not plan to use in the article). The article does not need, as it currently attempts, to provide an explanation of identity and access management system functions.

• the cultural dimension of digital identity is likely going to draw as many, if not more, readers than the technical. This is a valid and important subject for this article. However the existing article on online identity already covers this subject matter in some depth and to go too deeply into it here would be redundant. What is of interest here are the causal relationships and parallels between the way the problems of identifications are solved in the digital and non-digital contexts. I will attempt to to focus the discussion in this article on those connections and refer much of the discussion to the other article.

So far I have rewritten the introduction with the above in mind. I think it works well enough.

I am currently drafting a new section on "The origins of digital identity" which will describe:

• The pre-computer uses of recorded identity (informational)
• The similarity of the identification problems faced before and after the invention of computers.
• The way computer scientists borrowed and applied these a) to create multi-user systems, and b) to network systems.

I plan to then break the article into three more sections...

1. A section on the use of digital identity in computer systems - this will focus on the problem of identification. (Assurance will be discussed, but as explained above, will be limited to informative context and accompanied by links to resources that take those functions as their primary subject.)
2. A section on the social and social effects of digital identity - this will follow more closely the material that exists in the current article. I will provide a summary of the key thoughts and positions and provide links to further material.
3. The usual further reading and related articles concluding section.

Ric

Ric Phillips (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

All..

Additional note on the theoretical underpinning of the article.

The article dives straight into the problem of trust and the authentication function. This is not the most basic - or primary problem - that digital identity functions to resolve. It is the most common use case - but that is not the same thing.

The first and definitive problem digital identity exists to solve is simply identification. The information in a digital identity - at a minimum - needs to be sufficient to either: allow an algorithm to select an item from a collection, or satisfy a rule that establishes membership of a class.

The issue of trust comes after this, and much of the complexity and diversity of identity technology arises from the trust problem. Trust is independent of identification, or a proxy of identification (tokens, etc). Identification can be achieved without trust, and often is.

Identification is more definitive and descriptive. And sufficiently informative and worthy of discussion to be the primary topic of the technical part of the article.

Ric

Ric Phillips (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Jaco,

Regarding "having a digital identity": surely an entity's *possession* of a digital identity without that identity being *attributed* to the entity is in effect meaningless? In this sense, identity is an entirely subjective, multiplicitous set of properties, not a unitary "thing" that can be possessed...

Scott Lemon is interesting on this stuff: http://www.freeid.org/2005/04/01.html#a570

"I believe that identity is given to us by communities that we belong to."

Luke

---

Luke,

Agree with your *attributed* idea.

And it goes well with Scott remarks because, for example, if needed people who receive funds & resources, can have as a fundamental right, that the community of *givers* can include them in "their community",(*) then this people will receive much more funds and resources.

Details in www.vitualrights.org/justicia social.pdf (spanish) and the big idea is also represented here: http://www.virtualrights.org/project_overview_latest.pdf (english)

The main idea behind the mentioned fundamental right(**) is that society is being managed by ICT, and a Virtual Entity can offer more abilities to every individual person who wants it.

(*) And receive the help directly to their Virtual Entity, which includes, or is able to manage an internet accesible Bank account, and Trust Fund. (**) www.virtualrights.org

Jaco

---

What might an identity entity be?

If someone has a clear, clean, and concise idea, they might edit the section, Networked identity, of the Wikipedia page, Digitial identity, rewriting it so that it does not use the term, 'identity entity,' but instead uses a short phrase with the same meaning.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hrbardee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Elide?

"In order to attribute a digital representation to an entity, and so to elide the two as a digital subject, the attributing party (the observer) must trust that the representation does indeed pertain to the entity (see Authentication below)."

I think the author meant something like 'combine' or 'conflate', but certainly not 'elide'. Could someone discern the correct fix? Shenme 17:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Revise

I believe that this article needs serious editing. For example, the first section "digital subject" places at the same levels human beings and things... There is a certainly a huge difference between "being identifiable" and "having an identity" or even "constructing one's identity." The identity of a person can't be subsumed in a set of attributes.

IMO an article on "digital identity" should construct on the underpinning foundations of "identity" and not start from a reified version of individuals being described in terms of attributes. The concept of "digital identity" should be critically looked in the perspective of what philosophers, linguists, educators, logicians etc. have said on this issue. For example, if we are to follow Locke that "personal identity consists: not in the identity of substance, but... in the identity of consciousness", then we should definitively review this article ("attributes" are about the "identity of the substance", not the identity of the consciousness).

The next section "Identity through relationship" looks at identity as something external to the owner of the identity, the result of an observation by an external entity ("An observer's perception of the digital identity") and do not take into account the most important observer: oneself, as reflective self, constructing his/her identity.

My suggestion for a full rewrite of the article would be:

1) treat independently artifacts (that can be identified) with those creating artifacts (that have a proper identity)

2) start from what has been said on identity by recognised authorities such as philosophers, linguists, psychologists, educators (learning is about the construction of one's identity), etc.

3) find authoritative sources linking the construction & exploitation of identity with digital technologies looking at what are the challenges and opportunities. How digital technology does alter / expand / transform the construction and exploitation of one's identity.

I might not be the most qualified person for doing the job, but I would be willing to join in this task.

- Serge 11:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I do realise it's been a while since you wrote this, but I'd like to ask you if you're still interested in rewriting this article. I absolutely agree with you on this matter, I think this article is very narrow and disorganised, it could certainly be structured to reflect on philosophical, psychological, technological etc aspects of digital identity. I am not an expert on the subject either, but as part of an educational assignment I will be doing an extensive research on the topic. Bettinusz (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional references to be added

There are plenty of references on the subject. For instance CALT Encyclopedia: digital identity, collected as part of the FIDIS project, identifies many of them. Note: I do not publish this link in the main page in order not to be accused of contributing to Farm Linking!. --Nabeth (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add back this reference (that had remained on this page for several years):

• Ideating Identity

I just added it back but someone evidently feels it should not appear... Crosbie Fitch (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Attempt at "clever" writing falls flat... as usual.

"finite but unlimited" - Need to decide which! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.238.31 (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am starting on a complete rewrite of this article here User:Chrislk02/sandbox5 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris, would you be interested in collaborating on rewriting the article? I've seen you have a fair amount done. As part of an educational assignment, I will be trying to work on this article as well. Bettinusz (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite and restructure

I will attempt to rewrite some sections to make it less technical and more comprehensive around the subject. Any help or feedback would be greatly appreciated. Bettinusz (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Good work so far. There are still no inline citations in large bodies of text, and the page as a whole remains very technical. Also, what's up with the 'Related Terms' section at the start? It seems out of place and out of style. Any qualms about removing or drastically changing it? --Ace Jon (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've tried to work on that section to improve it, but maybe it is still a bit off. However it is quite an important part, as mentioned here on the talk page those related terms have to be explained as they are used later on. Any suggestions how to incorporate that section with the other sections? Bettinusz (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of responding on your talkpage or mine, here are some of my suggestions:

1. Leave the lead alone for now until the rest of the article gets a rewrite, then incorporate content from the article into the lead.
2. There are too many subsections/subsubsections; some of these have only 2-3 sentences.
3. The section entitled "Related terms" is uncommon for a wikipedia article. Either rename it, or move the material into another section, or incorporate into the lead.
4. Regarding the "Business Aspects" section, change to "Business aspects" in keeping with MOS:HEAD.
5. References need a clean-up.
6. Don't use these: "recently", "(see x below)", "to date", "i.e.". --Rosiestep (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

— I guess a decision as to accuracy vs level of detail is needed.

Relationship of an [Identity_(social_science)] to Digital Identity I see not see any relation to the [Subject's "real" identity|Identity_(social_science)] and the Digital Identity. The Digital Identity is merely a a set of Claims made by one Party about itself or another person, group, thing or concept. There relationship is one of a Level of Assurance that they are indeed the same entity. Hopefully, a bank wants a higher " Level of Assurance" than is used at a social site or free gaming site.

Context of Digital Identity There should also be a reference to the [Context|Operational_context] of the Digital Identity. Are we ALWAYS talking about the Internet or within an organization? The line "..and contains information about the subject's relationships to other entities" is not always the case as the person may not always be the case. There maybe no relationships provided, but only an identifier. Likewise, the line "... Attributes are acquired and contain information about a subject, such as medical history, purchasing behavior,.." is not always the case and implies a mixing of the provided attributes form one assertion to another.

MANY Digital Identities The reality is a "entity" has MANY digital Identities as they have many "paper" identities. (Work Identity Cards, Drivers License, Loyalty cards, SSN, Credit cards, Medical Cards.. etc) The medical card would not be utilized (in most cases) int he context of a bank and Loyalty cards would probably not work well when presented to a bank. This is where the concept of reference to the [Context|Operational_context] needs to be present.

Within a work environment, the Digital Identity is typically owned and gathered by the Organization. When on a social site, the digital identity is created by the person. When an Third Party, like an advertising agency builds an digital identity, the data is gathered by the Third Party and their associated sites. -jim 10:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilleke (talk • contribs)

Deletion request

I'm declining this CSD. As far as I can tell, the copyvio detector matches are false positives - the text in question was on this page first.

1. This match is to text that was added in this edit in February 2008. The page it matches with[1] doesn't show up on archive.org before 2013.
2. This match is with a publication date - 03/2009. The text here is older (see, for example, Jan. 2009.
3. The third match is a 2% match. The phrase "is not linked to an identifier" is too trivial to consider a copyvio. Guettarda (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging FockeWulf FW 190 since I'm declining their deletion request. Guettarda (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Difference between a digital id and an analog id

No where in the article explains what the difference is between a digital id and an analog id. It is making an assumption that all identifiers stored on a computer are digital when that isn't the case. Is it still a digital id when stored on an analog computer or other analog storage medium? 120.21.177.213 (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 December 2022 and 17 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Growing.beans, .octopat1, Chjenjennifer, Ksingh03 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Growing.beans (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Zmuhl: It seems that, as part of this assignment, a large amount of text was added that is not supported by the cited sources. In several instances (I reverted some), the text was mostly unrelated to the cited source. I'm not sure if this is from ChatGPT (which usually has these issues) or just some very lax use of sources. Everything that was added in May 2023 needs to reviewed, possibly removing anything that is not supported by reliable secondary sources. Best, MarioGom (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

MarioGom: thanks for flagging these concerns. I’ll review the page for irrelevant or poorly sourced content added by this student group in May 2023 and edit accordingly. Feel free to intervene further as you see fit. Regards, Zmuhl (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)