The Use Of Pseudonyms Is a Prima Facie Symptom, Of Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction (EMAMD) Options Rating

[Moulton]

This thread is an example of Regression Toward the Meme.

[jd turk]

Resolved —

The Use Of Pseudonyms Is A Prima Facie Symptom Of Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction

Disagree completely. In the case of WP, its very structure and encouragement of anonymous IP editors makes pseudonyms necessary.

I've edited on there for about a year, mostly just minor edits and the like. It's not like I edit war at the Gaza Strip article or anything else that's a hotbed of emotional conflict. That's just not what I'm interested in.

I'd love to be able to edit under my real name, but about six months ago some punk college student got ticked off that I removed his name from a college article. He found my websites and spammed them, threatened my ebay account, and caused trouble for me at work with anonymous emails. My old username was connected to my email account, so a few pages of googling me was sufficient to find me out.

I'm a semi-public figure. If everybody else is afforded the luxury of being anonymous, I need the same for the purpose of safety. Even if ninety-nine percent of people on the internet are normal, that one percent can cause a lot of trouble with very little cause or effort.

[Jon Awbrey]

Resolved —

The Use Of Pseudonyms Is A Prima Facie Symptom Of Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction

Disagree completely. In the case of WP, its very structure and encouragement of anonymous IP editors makes pseudonyms necessary.

I've edited on there for about a year, mostly just minor edits and the like. It's not like I edit war at the Gaza Strip article or anything else that's a hotbed of emotional conflict. That's just not what I'm interested in.

I'd love to be able to edit under my real name, but about six months ago some punk college student got ticked off that I removed his name from a college article. He found my websites and spammed them, threatened my ebay account, and caused trouble for me at work with anonymous emails. My old username was connected to my email account, so a few pages of googling me was sufficient to find me out.

I'm a semi-public figure. If everybody else is afforded the luxury of being anonymous, I need the same for the purpose of safety. Even if ninety-nine percent of people on the internet are normal, that one percent can cause a lot of trouble with very little cause or effort.

I'm just telling one of the few things that I have learned from Wikipedia over the last four years.

Just by way of clarifying the terms of the statement, the qualification "prima facie" is there to stipulate what computer geeks call a "default assumption". There can be exceptions on account of extenuating circumstances. But the essence of exceptions and extenuating circumstances is to be few in number and even accidental. But the rule remains valid — if a non-trivial subpopulation starts claiming exemptions from the ordinary norms of scholarship and society — as they do in Wikipedia — then there will be Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction (EMAMD) abroad in the Land, you can bet your bottom dollar on that.

Jon

[wikiwhistle]

If most of the Western population starts claiming exemptions from the ordinary norms of scholarship and society — as they do at times on the internet — then there will be Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction (EMAMD) abroad on said internets, you can bet your bottom dollar on that.

[Jon Awbrey]

Citizen Turk,

Let me focus for a moment on your opening statement:

Resolved —

The Use Of Pseudonyms Is A Prima Facie Symptom Of Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction

Disagree completely. In the case of WP, its very structure and encouragement of anonymous IP editors makes pseudonyms necessary.

Do you see what you just said there? You said that Anonyms make Pseudonyms necessary.

Now there may be a distinction between Anonyms and Pseudonyms in Normal Society, and many Wikipediots like to pretend that the putative distinction makes a Big Diff in Wikipedia, but if you really think about the matter, or if you are unlucky enough to spend a lot of time experiencing the practical consequences of the Wikipediot usage of these terms, you will find that it's a distinction without a difference. In short, that which we call Anon IP is simply a species of e-specially noxious Pseudonym.

In light of that Principle Of Equivalence, your statement simply says that Pseudonyms make Pseudonyms necessary.

In terms of practical effects, your statement says that Deficits Of Accountability (DOA's) make Deficits Of Accountability (DOA's) necessary.

And that argument is, well, DOA.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Tue 6th May 2008, 9:56pm

[anthony]

Resolved —

The Use Of Pseudonyms Is A Prima Facie Symptom Of Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction

Disagree completely. In the case of WP, its very structure and encouragement of anonymous IP editors makes pseudonyms necessary.

Maybe, but contributing to Wikipedia in the first place isn't necessary.

It's certainly arguable that any of us who continue to contribute to Wikipedia, even after knowing what goes on there, are emotionally, mentally, and morally, dysfunctional. I don't really agree with this, looking back through my edits over the last month, I think they were mostly rational (they were mostly about subjects I was trying to learn more about, with the rest being responses to things that showed up on my talk page). Then again, my username there, as well as here, is my first name. Is that a pseudonym?

This post has been edited by anthony: Tue 6th May 2008, 10:27pm

[Jon Awbrey]

Resolved —

The Use Of Pseudonyms Is A Prima Facie Symptom Of Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction

Disagree completely. In the case of WP, its very structure and encouragement of anonymous IP editors makes pseudonyms necessary.

Maybe, but contributing to Wikipedia in the first place isn't necessary.

It's certainly arguable that any of us who continue to contribute to Wikipedia, even after knowing what goes on there, are emotionally, mentally, and morally, dysfunctional. I don't really agree with this, looking back through my edits over the last month, I think they were mostly rational (they were mostly about subjects I was trying to learn more about, with the rest being responses to things that showed up on my talk page). Then again, my username there, as well as here, is my first name. Is that a pseudonym?

Just one question — Hopkins or Perkins?

Jon

[GlassBeadGame]

Resolved —

The Use Of Pseudonyms Is A Prima Facie Symptom Of Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction

Disagree completely. In the case of WP, its very structure and encouragement of anonymous IP editors makes pseudonyms necessary.

Maybe, but contributing to Wikipedia in the first place isn't necessary.

It's certainly arguable that any of us who continue to contribute to Wikipedia, even after knowing what goes on there, are emotionally, mentally, and morally, dysfunctional. I don't really agree with this, looking back through my edits over the last month, I think they were mostly rational (they were mostly about subjects I was trying to learn more about, with the rest being responses to things that showed up on my talk page). Then again, my username there, as well as here, is my first name. Is that a pseudonym?

Yes, I think that should be considered a pseudonym. It does not link your account to your IRL in any meaningful way. Also there is no real assurance that it is actually your first name. But on the hand it at least is less annoying than many pseudonym username.

Also another effect of pseudonyms, which I have noted with some displeasure in my own contributions, including here at WR, is that not using a IRL identity permits a user to engage in harsher criticism than might be otherwise used. By using your real first name maybe you not as likely to do this. But still it is a pseudonym.

[Jon Awbrey]

Pseudonym = False Name

For example, consider the agent or agents who edited Wikipedia under the following names:

• 217.237.149.143
• L!-wgi

Let us assume that the agent or agents in question are human beings and not robots.

In that case, it being highly unlikely that the true names of any human beings are either "217.237.149.143" or "L!-wgi", we may provisionally assume that both of these names are false names of the agent or agents in question.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 7th May 2008, 1:40am

[GlassBeadGame]

Pseudonym = False Name

Jon

I think the other prong of pseudonym, distinguishing it from an anon, is that it comes with it's very own "reputational bank account." Which of course can be walked away from if over-drawn.

[Jon Awbrey]

Pseudonym = False Name

Jon

I think the other prong of pseudonym, distinguishing it from an anon, is that it comes with it's very own "reputational bank account". Which of course can be walked away from if over-drawn.

Yes, of course, being closer to Normal than most of us — though I did live in Normal for a brief time in the 80's, it has been a long time since I've been back to Normal — you are thinking of the way it is in Normal Society.

But Wikipedia is a long way from Normal, and you can look it up.

No one is really Anon, since everyone edits under some User Name, even if it's a Number, even if it shifts from time to time, and even if it's shared by many other agents from time to time.

I know of several agents who operate under a small number of IP Numbers, laying up credits and debits under their various and sundry Numb-Nyms, kind of like Numbered Swiss Bank Accounts, I guess.

But all of these are still False Names, unless they are really people's legal names.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 7th May 2008, 12:42pm

[anthony]

Then again, my username there, as well as here, is my first name. Is that a pseudonym?

Yes, I think that should be considered a pseudonym. It does not link your account to your IRL in any meaningful way. Also there is no real assurance that it is actually your first name. But on the hand it at least is less annoying than many pseudonym username.

Also another effect of pseudonyms, which I have noted with some displeasure in my own contributions, including here at WR, is that not using a IRL identity permits a user to engage in harsher criticism than might be otherwise used. By using your real first name maybe you not as likely to do this. But still it is a pseudonym.

Ironically, my contributions nowadays are not nearly as dysfunctional as my contributions were when my username *was* my full real name. And I actually engage in much *less* harsh criticism now than I did back then. Then again, maybe this isn't ironic. Maybe the premise that pseudonyms are a symptom of dysfunction is a false one.

But then, I don't think every public statement one ever makes should be recorded for eternity and indexed. I don't like that about Wikipedia, and I don't like that about Citizendium either. Is there any real purpose to maintaining the full edit history of an article from years ago? Does that justify the incredible privacy violations made possible by this edit history? What about the talk pages? Can't these at least be discarded after a while? I like the idea from the old days of refactoring talk pages, but nowadays that's pretty much treated as a privacy violation.

I dunno, I don't contribute much to either Wikipedia or Citizendium any more (never did contribute much to Citizendium). I ran across an interesting quote from Larry Sanger today, which summarizes exactly how I feel about Citizendium:

It seems like every time I sit down to do a little work on Wikipedia or Nupedia, I am now asking myself, "What's the use? I don't have any time to do anything of importance." If I can't do the job right, what's the point of doing it at all?

Sanger wrote that March 1, 2002. Who wants to put their real name on an unfinished work-in-progress about some topic that you barely know anything about? If I'm going to spend a lot of time creating "something of importance", I'll publish it on my own site, not on a wiki.

Is it a symptom of dysfunction for me to press "add reply" right now? After all, I'm using a pseudonym, right? No, I don't think this is dysfunctional. I'm using this forum as a conversation, and I think there's a good chance someone will reply with something insightful. And like my contributions to Wikipedia, I don't want this conversation recorded for eternity and indexed (and attached to my real name), if for no other reason than that I won't care 5 years from now how I felt at this particular moment. I'll have worked this particular quandary out by then.

[jd turk]

You said that Anonyms make Pseudonyms necessary.

Pretty much, yeah. I'm saying if there is any lack of accountability in the system, it's unsafe. If there was a reliable method of identification for all users on WP (or any other colaborative site), then pseudonyms would not be necessary.

However, there isn't, and they are.

[dogbiscuit]

But then, I don't think every public statement one ever makes should be recorded for eternity and indexed. I don't like that about Wikipedia, and I don't like that about Citizendium either. Is there any real purpose to maintaining the full edit history of an article from years ago? Does that justify the incredible privacy violations made possible by this edit history? What about the talk pages? Can't these at least be discarded after a while? I like the idea from the old days of refactoring talk pages, but nowadays that's pretty much treated as a privacy violation.

That is a good example of an ill-designed system. WikiMedia software is just some general purpose stuff that can be used for stuff. Wikipedia then maps important stuff onto mechanisms designed for other stuff. Then the mechanism doesn't quite do the right thing - like how can you really determine an article's attribution?

The record is important for attribution, but the gunk that goes with it, the detritus of the edit explanation is not important. Similarly the tradition of keeping the unfortunate records of article discussion keeps crap hanging around.

There are those who will argue that keeping the old tat around in an archive stops rehashing old discussions, but I suspect the downsides of ownership and abuse are worse.

[Jon Awbrey]

You said that Anonyms make Pseudonyms necessary.

Pretty much, yeah. I'm saying if there is any lack of accountability in the system, it's unsafe. If there was a reliable method of identification for all users on WP (or any other colaborative site), then pseudonyms would not be necessary.

However, there isn't, and they are.

At least we have come to the understanding that the issue of Authorship By Any Name (ABAN) is just some color of Herring for the more general issue of Personal Accountability And Responsibility (PAAR).

If you are from the US, or have heard very much about the place, you will almost immediately recognize the form of argument that we are discussing here. In one of its most frequent applications it goes a bit like this:

AK-47s On The Street Make AK-47s For Home Defense Necessary.

And we all know how "safe" that has made us.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 7th May 2008, 12:33pm

[Proabivouac]

In light of that Principle Of Equivalence, your statement simply says that Pseudonyms make Pseudonyms necessary.

That's right.

[Jon Awbrey]

This is just one experience, I understand, I'm just using it as an example of how without accountability for everyone, safety can't be guaranteed.

But at least this returns us to the topic.

And at last this returns us to the point.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 7th May 2008, 8:40pm

[Moulton]

Embrace Your Avatar

Gordon Pitts of the Toronto Globe and Mail interviews Gerri Sinclair on the role of avatars in online cultures.

Gerri Sinclair: Time to embrace your avatar

Gerri Sinclair is a true Renaissance woman. In fact, she was a Renaissance drama scholar before turning her mind to computers, entrepreneurship, and thought leadership about on-line avatars in virtual worlds.

Having sold her Internet company to Microsoft Corp., Ms. Sinclair has been a company director, government adviser, and, recently, head of a pioneering masters degree program in digital media in Vancouver.

But business is clearly in her blood. Now she is planning to co-found a new venture in the emerging area of "ubiquitous computing." Her tentative company name: Blue Beagle Island - in honour of the ship that carried Charles Darwin to the Galapagos.

Click on the link to read Gordon Pitts' interview with Gerri Sinclair.

[the fieryangel]

Let's not even go there...

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Sun 8th June 2008, 12:32pm

[Jon Awbrey]

Resolved —

The Use Of Pseudonyms Is A Prima Facie Symptom Of Emotional, Mental, And Moral Dysfunction

'Nuff Said

Buddha Bump!

Jon