Comments on: What’s in a name?

By: Jikomboe » Unafikiria Nini Kuhusu Kublogu Bila Kutumia Jina Halisi?

Jikomboe » Unafikiria Nini Kuhusu Kublogu Bila Kutumia Jina Halisi? — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:09:12 +0000

[...] kuhusu hili suala la kublogu bila jina. Nimekuta makala fupi nzuri ameiandika Ethan Zuckerman. Bonyeza hapa uisome. Mimi suala hili la kutotumia jina halinisumbui sana. Sijui wewe. Tazama mwongozo huu wa [...]

By: Hi, I’m Shawn. What is your potentially-useless Identity Token? « Myriad Missives

Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:01:56 +0000

[...] I’m Shawn. What is your potentially-useless Identity Token? Ethan Zuckerman posted a great article last week triggered by issues around “anonymous blogging”. I would encourage all folks [...]

By: SudaneseDrima

SudaneseDrima — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:45:12 +0000

Nicely said Ethan, being able to blog about politics anonymously has helped us blog our hearts out with honesty. In some different cases like the Fake Steve Jobs blog, it’s another story with different circumstances.

By: Shawn Broderick

Shawn Broderick — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:05:00 +0000

Ethan:

Great post! I was particularly amused when I got to your comment form at the bottom of the article where it says “Name (required)” :-) . I guess maybe you should change it to “Identity Token (that may no longer be especially useful)” :-)

- Shawn

By: quixote

quixote — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:40:49 +0000

I get the sense that people who object to anonymity in blogs are looking for a quick way to believe or disbelieve what they’re reading. Like maritim says, they could also read and analyze the content, but that takes a bit of thought.

The issue reminds me a lot of the use of SAT scores in college admissions. It’s an easy way to tell the secretary to winnow down the pile without having to actually read a whole set of them.

That said, I don’t disagree at all with quinn about needing to know who a source is. Depending on context, sourcing may be critical. But that’s a different issue from public anonymity. Reporters don’t divulge sources, necessarily. The people downgrading anonymous bloggers are making a different point entirely. To me, it looks like a point about their mental laziness rather than the blogger.

By: maritim

maritim — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:49:59 +0000

I think the only way to judge a blogger’s ability is by his post, the fact that he/she posts anonymously to me is secondary. Good content wins every other time.

That said there are situations were the blogger is not sure of his safety as a result of his/her blog, where free speech is alien, here to distrust a blogger because their anonymity would be unfair to say the least.

By: Solanasaurus

Solanasaurus — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 05:01:39 +0000

Since starting work for Global Voices I’ve been surprised at how often this question keeps popping up. I find it really bizarre – as though people are just coming to terms with the fact that you really shouldn’t trust what anybody says 100%. Even “real” journalists and newspapers! For all the rumors and scams that are floating around on the internet – if it can help people become more critical of the sources that are supposedly “authorities” too, that’s a good thing. FYI – Solanasaurus is Solana Larsen. I promise.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:18:06 +0000

I have come to understand the value of being able to publish anonymously from the disappointment of not being able to publish all I would like to have written on my own, identifiable blog.

In Darfur, we were cautioned not to write anything because the Government of Sudan had denied a Spanish Red Cross worker a renewal of her humanitarian visa (hard enough to get in any case) after reading her blog. We could write very little about the fascinating inner workings of our India-Pakistan children’s peace project, because we were already infiltrated by the ISI, and ultimately were banned from travel in Pakistan.

I would have loved to have had a place to have posted anonymously at those times, and others.

MBJ
http://memestreamblog.wordpress.com

By: quinn

quinn — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:50:36 +0000

i think it’s not, or at least not for me, a matter of ‘can i trust this person?’ it’s ‘can i hold this person to account? can i possibly track them down if i need clarification, or for them to tell their side of the story if something goes wrong? can i convey their accountability to them in our relationship?’ it’s even about wanting the relationship to exceed the public relationship- almost (but not quite) having them prove they trust you. (admittedly, that’s not anonymity broken for publication) for me, name is only one aspect of anonymity, especially when i want someone to break it for me. other identifying bits of background are involved- it’s very hard to explain the context of a perspective without saying “Mohammed Hassan attended Stanford in the 1980s before returning home to Egypt.” of course, for that to matter, that person has to be very key to the piece. otherwise yeah, you don’t really need a name.

I have worked with anonymous sources, and been very happy with the reporting i’ve done. but it has to be proportional- if someone is telling me about something very big, and they don’t use their name because they have this one friend that would get totally mad if they know who wrote that blog- that’s not going to fly. i am asking them to take a risk, but they are asking me to take a risk as well, which goes into the math. i was thinking of a few examples of where it was well worthwhile, but then realized i can’t really go into them. :)

By: Michael Sullivan

Michael Sullivan — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:51:09 +0000

I used to use various pseudonyms (Epoch and aetherson, mostly), now I usually use my real name, as here.

For some of us, real names provide more anonymity than pseudonyms. I think I’m the only person to have ever used the pseudonym “aetherson,” and one of a fairly small number of people to use the pseudonym “Epoch.”

There are a LOT of Michael Sullivans out there.