Chewable Clan
This post by Bjorn regarding his letter to the Knoxville News Sentinel that was published was discussed by SKB. The comments that ensue lead to a discussion of anonymity at any online forum. Some interesting comments regarding the credibility that assigning a name may lend to an opinion or to writing material.
Of course, even big media has been guilty of not signing editorials at all. I am actually more concerned that both those articles (the former I don’t agree with and the latter I do) don’t have a person to contact who is identifiable (after all, a person is responsible for the article). I don’t care if they go by a real name or not. I just want to be able to shoot them an email and tell them I agree or disagree with them. And people say I am a coward for not putting my name on things! At least you can contact me and refute what I have to say either in comments or via email. Obviously, by that rationale, the editorial staff at the WaPo and the NYT are cowards too. But it doesn’t discredit what they say. What they say discredits what they say (in the case of the WaPo AWB article, anyway).
Yeah, they have a message board but does the editorial staff read it and take it to heart? Doubtful.
Does putting your name on something add to its credibility? Does signing your name imply that you have guts? Is it noble? Are my opinions less valid or important because you don’t know my real identity?
First, if you knew my real identity you wouldn’t care. I’m nobody you’ve ever heard of. I’m just, like, some guy, ya know. Second, why does it matter?
December 31st, 2003 at 3:22 pm
I never understand why this sparks so much debate. Like Say Uncle points out, nobody would actually care who Brehd Patchley is. Somebody might recognize the name, but it wouldn’t add validity to anything I say or cause a stir of excitment. Maybe it’s time for us to all go public just to shut up the others. š
December 31st, 2003 at 4:34 pm
It doesn’t mean much in the case of you or, say, SouthKnox Bubba. Both of you have been around, and been constant in presence and easily available, so that your noms de ‘Net *are* identities in themselves. Just because they can’t be pinned to a real world body doesn’t make than much more difference.
There’s lots of reasons for anonymity, some better than others. I started out anonymous because I commented on the local papers and they had a reputation for nastiness with critics, if they deigned to note them. Turns out that I’ve since heard from folks at both the papers and they enjoy what I do. Only one guy didn’t and he’s the one I named the blog for! He turned out to be a jerk, and he called me a lot of choice names in an email. I’ve since gotten over my fears, obviously, and haven’t worried about it.
Don’t let it bug you either. “Say Uncle” is a person to me. I know what he thinks about a lot of things and can guess what he thinks if a new topic comes up. I know where to find him, and run into him around the Web sometimes, too. Saying I don’t know who you “really” are is akin to saying I haven’t seen a RL friend naked. Don’t need to. š
January 2nd, 2004 at 11:49 am
Can’t help you with this one since I’ve never been in the closet to begin with.
Frankly, I couldn’t care less whether a blogger reveals his name or not. Content is what brings me back.