Pseudonymous writing and ethics, they're not chalk and cheese Options

[privatemusings]

A post from Doc G in another thread has prompted this thread - but it's also stuff that I've been chewing over for a while, particularly following the launch of the excellent akahele.com (well done, and great stuff to all involved) - Doc said "Hiding behind a pseudonym, whilst commenting on real identifiable people, is cowardly and deplorable." - a view echoed on akahele - "When people hide behind anonymous identifiers or phony pseudonyms, trust breaks down."

I just wanted to mention (as an pseudonymous person!) that I kinda hope that pseudonymous writing and good ethics / value / humour / quality aren't fundamentally in tension, rather that they will just tend to lead to the whole slew of problems well documented already.

In particular, I thought I'd mention the example of 'Private Eye' - a british institution and fantastic magazine which doesn't generally do 'bylines' (with notable exceptions) - contributors make up silly names and write their stuff... sound familiar?

The fundamental difference of course is that Private Eye is 'published' - and as such is regularly in and out of the courts, with varying degrees of success. The important point is that they manage very successfully to continue to publish, and even though they fairly regularly make mistakes / cross lines and have to pay damages, they're more often 'right' in some sense or other.....

So if one allows that pseudonymous contribution can be valuable - where does 'responsibility' come in? - On the part of the publisher, I guess - and it's the absence of such which I reckon is of higher importance than the identity of author thing.

The more you think about it, the odder it seems that publication wouldn't be a stated goal of a foundation seeking to share the sum of human knowledge. If the tool requires 'self-publication' (which is how I'd describe wikipedia?) - then that's where identification is required - fundamentally because the buck stopping somewhere is a good thing, and should be supported - I don't think many would disagree?

This post has been edited by privatemusings:

[Doc glasgow]

I think I said all I need to on this issue when I wrote this

[Hell Freezes Over]

I think I said all I need to on this issue when I wrote this

You wrote earlier that attacking living people while hiding between a pseudonym is deplorable. Do you include your own posts on IRC? I've seen you post some pretty strong criticism of others, while not using your real name yourself.

A post from Doc G in another thread has prompted this thread - but it's also stuff that I've been chewing over for a while, particularly following the launch of the excellent akahele.com (well done, and great stuff to all involved) - Doc said "Hiding behind a pseudonym, whilst commenting on real identifiable people, is cowardly and deplorable." - a view echoed on akahele - "When people hide behind anonymous identifiers or phony pseudonyms, trust breaks down."

[snip]

In particular, I thought I'd mention the example of 'Private Eye' - a british institution and fantastic magazine which doesn't generally do 'bylines' (with notable exceptions) - contributors make up silly names and write their stuff... sound familiar?

The fundamental difference of course is that Private Eye is 'published' - and as such is regularly in and out of the courts, with varying degrees of success. The important point is that they manage very successfully to continue to publish, and even though they fairly regularly make mistakes / cross lines and have to pay damages, they're more often 'right' in some sense or other.....

Private Eye may not publish bylines, but the identities of the writers is widely known, and certainly known to the publisher, so it's a very different situation. They've managed to keep on publishing because they regularly ask for donations from readers to help with their lawsuits.

I'm not convinced that requiring real names would change much about Wikipedia. We've seen bad editing from people using their real names, good editing from anons, and vice versa.

[Doc glasgow]

I think I said all I need to on this issue when I wrote this

You wrote earlier that attacking living people while hiding between a pseudonym is deplorable. Do you include your own posts on IRC? I've seen you post some pretty strong criticism of others, while not using your real name yourself.

No doubt I've typed things in IRC I ought to regret. However, typing comments in a chatroom (mainly about other pseudonymous people - like yourself) is hardly comparable to adding information to the world's most read website, which is then published as "encyclopedic".

You are really trying to compare name-calling in the playground with running a documentary on the BBC. I can go to the pub and pass comments about some Footballer's private life, it may not be "nice" and they may even be untrue, but it is quite a different matter if I print then as facts in a newspaper.

[Hell Freezes Over]

No doubt I've typed things in IRC I ought to regret. However, typing comments in a chatroom (mainly about other pseudonymous people - like yourself) is hardly comparable to adding information to the world's most read website, which is then published as "encyclopedic".

You are really trying to compare name-calling in the playground with running a documentary on the BBC. I can go to the pub and pass comments about some Footballer's private life, it may not be "nice" and they may even be untrue, but it is quite a different matter if I print then as facts in a newspaper.

I agree that it's different in terms of outcome for the subject, but not so different in terms of the motivation of the poster.

If it's the outcome for the subject we care about, as we ought to, it really doesn't matter whether the poster is anonymous or named. It's the content that matters. How often have you checked the byline on a newspaper, especially on a gossipy piece, to discover the author? Probably rarely, if ever.

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over: