While on MeatballWiki, please:
MeatballWiki members have used their real names since the beginning. In part this policy was a holdover from WikiWiki, much like the LinkPattern and the MeatballWikiCopyright. However, when setting the direction for MeatballWiki, the choice to use real names was a reflection of experience with many online fora. Real names were judged to create a more professional and more personal atmosphere than handles. It's important to understand that the choice to use real names was one of the most important founding principles of this project, chosen to set the tone and timbre of discussion here.
Real names are not the ulimate reality here, of course. Open access is another founding principle of MeatballWiki, and it was judged to be wrong to require contributors to universally submit to our policy. We observed from other wikis that it was a perfectly reasonable approach to allow people to either post without any name or with their real names. What we really sought to exclude were pseudonyms, aka PenNames. In this respect, the policy may be restated as anti-handle, although we really do encourage people to use their real names because we feel it's a lot more friendly.
As another founding principle of this site is social accountability, we weren't prepared to allow anonymous individuals to avoid any sort of accountability. In keeping with other wikis, we created an AuditTrail on RecentChanges that tracked each IP address or domain for each change (limited by ForgiveAndForget as well). This explains in part why we instruct that individuals wishing true anonymity to not post.
From these very simple beginnings, this policy has generated more discussion, controversy, and enemies than any other on this site. In part it's because it the complete opposite of prevailing Internet culture. In part, it's because it is an identity issue, a concern very important in American and Western societies. But perhaps it is simply that it is the very first aspect of Meatball culture that a newcomer must contend with--and, as it turns out, it reflects much of our CommunityIdentity here. After defending it for so long, it has also progressed from a philosophical value to an emotional value, and that fact should be considered before arguing against it.
The freedom to be anonymous is not the same as the right to be pseudonymous. You may post anonymously, but not pseudonymously.
What about those of us who use nicknames in real life too, or who consistently use an online nickname? -- Tarquin
IMO create a homepage for your nickname, where you give your real-life identity. -- HelmutLeitner
Why not use the name you would put on your résumé? -- SunirShah
I'm not sure what I think of using a handle as a UserName but posting anonymously. Maybe o.k. -- BayleShanks
Tarquin breaks new ground.
Has the "precedent" in question reverted to an IP address? Interesting. It's an interesting little dilemma, C. What do to? Become a Wiki:AnonymousDonor? Defy CommunityExpectations and use your handle? Bite the bullet and follow UseRealNames? Or simply leave? Whatever you choose, I sincerely hope it's not the last one. -- StephenGilbert
The "precedent" isn't really a precedent. Tarquin's idea and motivation were honest and fair. He just thought it was stupid for people to keep associating his domain with his identity; something I'm not exactly in disagreement with. However, since it seems to be confusing, maybe this new practice should be thought out a bit more. -- SunirShah
These days, it's become fashionable to make a big splash with your pseudonym, argue with the community, and then start posting "anonymously" even though it's really just a continuation of your pseudonym since everyone knows who you are. This is an interesting twist, but still an ungood twist, as it successfully subverts the entire community.
No, because one doesn't "choose" one's IPs as a testament to their identity. Nyms are clothes. Names are tartans. Pseudonyms are costumes. IPs are uniforms.
A strategy of TheCunctator
Continuing to use the handle for signatures which we have to remove, however, really flies in the face of CommunityExpectation. -- AlexSchroeder
e.g. NameWithheld?, AnonymousDonor
Spitting in our faces by creating a UserName of AnonymousDonor isn't a very positive move. You don't have to be disappointing about this.
I'm not trying to spit in anyone's faces. I'm willing to make contributions anonymously. I need to choose some "anonymous" username because that's more anonymous than my IP number/hostname showing up in the recent changes/edit history. That's all. -- TheCunctator
I don't really mind the AnonymousDonor username, as long as no one attempts to create an actual persona out of AnonymousDonor or stakes out personal real estate on the page AnonymousDonor. UseMod would allow a second person to sign up as AnonymousDonor, so all it does is display AnonymousDonor on RecentChanges instead of an IP.
Logging in as AnonymousDonor is also better than logging in using a handle, which causes handles to appear on RecentChanges, and which allows a persona to be built around that handle (although I'm not sure yet if i think just logging in with a handle is a really bad thing at all; I was leaning towards thinking it's fine, but after reading some of Sunir's recent thoughts, I am now right in the middle again). -- BayleShanks
Others have said that the signature/moniker of "NameWithheld?" is also a community resource which, conventionally in many communities, is available to all to use when they so wish, and doesn't actually belong to just one person. Some even say it is anti-community to co-opt this resource for personal usage.
The premise that "NameWithheld?" is for the personal use of one individual has not yet been decided/accepted in this community. Visitors are invited to read NameWithheldPseudonymityDebate? for more background. --anon.
Here's something I would be cool with if someone really didn't want to post with their real name (too long to write out, they don't like it, etc). They make up a fake real-sounding name, get it "approved" publically by meatball, move their wiki HomePage to that name, and perpetually leave a notice on that homepage with at least link to a place where you can see their real name (like their actual WWW homepage).
The reason for this convoluted process (rather than just making up a silly-sounding handle and putting a link to the real name on their wiki homepage) is mostly to prevent others from thinking non-real names were allowed, and partly to preserve atmosphere. -- BayleShanks
This site is more serious than it may seem. You should approach it with some modicum of professionalism or academic rigour. I think that using your real name goes a long way towards encouraging meaningful discussion because you can't hide behind an ever shifting, discardable alias. You should feel you are responsible for what you say (see PeerPressure, PeerReview). If you don't wish to take direct responsibility, you can post almost-anonymously, but in that case you shouldn't expect the same trust and respect for your post as when you sign it. That is, I do agree with Precious Roy on [Kuro5hin:Collaborative Media: Who do you trust?] that it's easier to trust people when they sign their real name. -- SunirShah
Also Sunir wishes us to approach this with 'academic rigour', but then fails to apply any methodology to his claims, which would be a normal academic exercise. I haven't found any research here which identifies why people wish to remain anonymous or which would be considered by an academic department. So, by claiming that by using real names we will become more academic, then you ought to start applying some methodology to what is being claimed in point 2. What evidence do you have that it is more friendly to use real names? To what extent does it make it more communal, and why? Why is most academic research carried out under anonymous conditions? --anon.
As for academic study, I assume that when people say MeatballWiki wants to be "academic" it means academic like an academic letter-writing society, or like the Enlightenment dudes of old, rather than like a modern scientific journal. -- BayleShanks
It's a DressCode.
If you notice, all the net.luminaries in "SocialSoftware" use their real names, simply because it is their profession. It's hard to make money if no one can write you a cheque. If 100% of the people I want to attract use their real names, and 99.999% of the people I don't want to attract use pseudonyms, it's a pretty good barrier to entry. -- SunirShah
it makes it more friendly and communal. It removes that little psychological barrier so we can get on with the real stuff.
Really, I think the first reason is much, much less important than the second. People are always more important than work. -- SunirShah
I have to take one point here with SunirShah's second reason for using real names - that using real names is more communal and friendly. Hey, what's all that about? I use my pseudo-name and I've never been accused (yet) of being unfriendly, or uncommunal. In fact, some of the communities that I belong to are almost inhabited by signature names and there are some very friendly places out there. I do not have a psychological barrier with names that people call themselves. I have psychological barriers with some things I read that people think, but not with what they call themselves (actually, if it's offensive- ie. swearing, then I normally do steer clear from them). --anon.
Maybe the "communal and friendly" point suffers a bit divorced from it's original context (which said that UseRealNames encouraged, first, seriousness, and second, communal friendliness). I guess other communities with handles might be just as communal and friendly; I just personally feel more comfortable here with the real names. Maybe I am confounding this with other factors that are making me feel comfortable, though.
That's one reason. There are many reasons, most positive. You shouldn't discount how much easier it is to form friendships when you can address people by their first names, and how much easier it is to emotionally distance yourself from people when you hide behind a mask. -- SunirShah
That's your personal opinion (perhaps you are comparing it against just having a last name?). I find it just as easy to form friendships with people who have chosen a nickname, not least because it is usually something distinctive, but also because I interact all the time with people who use them. -- Laurence (aka GreenReaper)
In contrast, on other sites that are less serious, more play, pseudonyms are a nice relief. They're like a never ending costume party. I certainly enjoy that in some contexts, especially when I play network games or when I'm on ICQ. I usually make it clear who I am, though. Sometimes I don't, but that's the devil in me. -- SunirShah
Now I understand considering the number of battles we've had that it seems that we're hard on UseRealNames, but I think the heart of the issue wasn't the real names policy, but our desire to exclude flamebaiters. The real names policy is merely the front line, as no troll will use their real name. Which is the whole point. -- SunirShah
So, just to clarify this, you wish people to use real names, to discourage trolls?
Besides, the question is more like Why not use real names? ;) -- SunirShah
Posting anonymously is discouraged, for a variety of reasons. But the primary one is that MeatballWiki is a community of people who are willing to stand up and commit to working together. Using your real name is a basic and simple way of declaring that commitment. --anon.
Understood. It definitely would be more valuable to realize this discussion won't be resolved any time soon, so we should take it more slowly. -- SunirShah
You forget that we were here first. -- SunirShah
That would be the RoyalWe, one must suppose. --anon.
So, it's really you who are demanding us to conform to your values. -- SunirShah
Demand? Who is demanding anything? Do what you want--go ahead and use your real name, if you like.
You can choose not to be here, and it's your desire to be here that's pulling us together to discuss it.
Yes, I *am* forcing you to type. Bend to my will!
You forget that we were here first.
That would be the RoyalWe, one must suppose. --anon.
As for suppressing dissent, I thought you had already stated that you were not going to follow the policy and that was that. My interpretation was that you were saying "I know this disagrees with you, but I am going to use the fact that this software allows me to write what I please, and what I please is to sign my handle". I actually don't have a problem with that approach in this case, as long as you don't delete stuff, but you should recognize that it entails that others will also do what they can to your text within the limits of the software; in my case, that meant I moved the stuff on your homepage over here.
In other words, instead of arguing about the policy I thought you wanted to just do stuff and see if others supported the policy enough to stop it; i.e. maybe there would turn out to be a "silent majority" which supported handles, in which case any deletions of your handles would get undeleted by others, etc. So just doing stuff sometimes makes sense. But if that was the presumption then I thought I was perfectly entitled to move your text here and delete the other page, too. Perhaps I was too hasty. --meatball
Here's another good point. Perhaps if your case were being argued by someone who is already a member of our community (there are some who take your side who I think are members here; StephenGilbert, for one; but the anti-UseRealNames doesn't seem to be as important to them as UseRealNames is to us), it would make more sense. But for someone new to come along and insist on changing something like that isn't quite fair to us. I mean, why shouldn't we be allowed to have a UseRealNames community if we want?
Yes, that goal can be changed, but that would mean those who are already meatballers would be the ones to change it.
If anyone could walk in any change that goal at will, it wouldn't be possible to have a UseRealNames community, or indeed any community with any norms not universally agreed upon by all humans. Which doesn't seem optimal.
-- BayleShanks
Real names is part of what attracted you here in the first place.
And it is one of the things that is pushing me away, as much as I find this an interesting place. -- Laurence (aka GreenReaper)
In a sense, it's interesting to see the limits placed on VulnerabilityToCommunity. To the degree that one is vulnerable to a DenialOfService attack, one is vulnerable to much more than the community of posters who have accepted community standards. And, again, those who contribute via small ISPs are more vulnerable than those who contribute through much larger providers for whom such attacks are more quotidian and more trivial--a DoS attack is a more credible threat to my tiny and quite vulnerable DSL bandwidth, but the same attack against an AOL point of presence would probably be more annoyance than threat.
Currently, I'm treating this wiki more as conversation than as a tome for posterity. Philosophical musings are a good and even necessary part of developing one's point of view. Unfortunately, U.S. courts seem to think that anything I type into a computer is supposed to be part of some of official record, and taken seriously in court.
At least in the current incarnation I can have some plausible deniability (ErikDeBill might not be my real name. In fact it's the name of one of my rivals. I'm laying the groundwork for some serious embarassment at this very moment!). Force something like a SSN, or a credit card and that goes down the tubes.
Even using my real name makes me nervous - my first reaction when I went to create a user name was to create a Pseudonym. Unfortunately, none of my normal ones (or others I could quickly think of) fit the LinkPattern. I wouldn't be surprised if "ErikDeBill" disappeared some time soon - and someone else appeared. I'd just rather be more anonymous. I produce enough digital efluvia in the course of day to day life without adding another source to my permanent record.
If this all sounds paranoid, well, it is. But I don't see how something being attributed to ErikDeBill or someone else makes a difference to the substance of the interaction. They are both just labels, with little bearing on reality. --ErikDeBill
1) Is ErikDeBill your real name? This is a yes or no question. You might say "yes" and be lying, and I admit that possibility. But I ask because I want to force you to either admit to using a fake name, or else tell a deliberate lie.
Asserting it does not make it so. It is a yes/no question only to those with an inability to TolerateAmbiguity. --NameWithheld?
2) Why are you concerned about people repeating what you say here? Why, exactly, do you want deniability? Is it because you aren't giving us the truth? Or because you want to lie elsewhere? I really find it hard to understand: exactly what is it that you want to deny?
And a comment. Here's why it matters to me whether you are ErikDeBill or someone else. I want to be able to connect what you say here to what you say elsewhere. I expect you to consider what you say here carefully, and not just spout of random bullshit. The knowledge that someone in the future might hold up what you say to you and say "did you really say this?" acts as a very useful deterrent preventing you from spouting random garbage or doing other destructive things. It's a form of SoftSecurity that is exceedingly useful.
I *want* you to be held accountable for what you say here, because in that way, your behavior is that much more likely to be a positive contribution. (I'm not singling you out or anything--I don't have some reason to think you are likely to be ill-behaved, mind you.) There are cases where there are good reasons to prevent you from being held to account, but unless you can identify what that might be--concretely--and unless the community agrees with the reasons, then I at least ask that you (and all others) use real names here. --ThomasBushnellBSG
It's a mistake to believe that people can be held less accountable (except in a legal sense, maybe) by their nicknames. An established nickname in a certain community is not a thing you'd risk any more lightly than your real name. -- At the same time I understand that it's an important thing to respect an established community's conventions when you join it, so even though I'm Mych on the UnrealWiki and in the Unreal community at large, I'm MichaelBuschbeck here. -- MichaelBuschbeck
A response, and not from ErikDeBill, to your position is that you never know when someone out there will use something you say, or some personal identifier of yours in a way that you wouldn't agree with, or a way that is not in your best interest. For example, I once (stupidly) posted to a newsgroup of professional interest to me and used my real name and email. Now I receive spam at my work email. Simply using my real name can result in spam. For my personal email, I use my real name. I want my friends and family to recognize mail from me without having to translate a username to a real name. They see the 'from' field and they know it is from me. Simply by stripping out the names from a wiki and then trying some permutations (add .s between names, or _s) and sending junk to the major providers, one could see what doesn't bounce and then sell this list to spammers. This could all be automated and made routine. Because I am not comfortable using my real name, and because you and others apparently feel strongly that I should, I simply will not come back, and, in all likelihood, will not use wikis. I read an article recently that put forth the notion that for people in the US, a fundamental underpinning of freedom is the ability to be anonymous. It struck me as novel. I had never thought about it that way before, but now that I have, I must say I agree. --anon.
One could easily say that the anonymous user could easily attack us, but usually anonymous people aren't interested enough in attacking. Pseudonymous people on the other hand make an emotional stake through SerialIdentity, and it takes an emotional stake to become angry. -- SunirShah
I think we see this very differently. You see a nickname as some way of concealing oneself, of escaping the requirement to be consistent and to identify oneself. I do not. --anon.
One interesting thought to add to the discussion of posting the domain/IP addresses of authors. How do you know SunirShah wrote all those entries during his trip through Europe and the United States? He certainly doesn't read everything on the site anymore. Consider even when he was in Durham, he wrote from different IPs within minutes of each other. [Southpoint mall has multiple free Internet drops.] How do you really know? Certainly you can correlate against his itinerary, but not always. The answer of course is that Sunir's identity is more than just his IP or domain, isn't it? Meatball's motto is People, people, computers, and people. His persona is more identifying than his network address. And that's another reason he might think that pseudonyms are bogus. -- SunirShah
Do you really think I wrote PublicScript? I don't even think I wrote it, and I wrote it. -- SunirShah
I don't think mental footprints are as distinguishable as you think; if someone faked someone else, we might notice an inconsistency, but then assume they were just in a different mood that day. Why do I believe the stuff signed SunirShah? I expect that is enough stuff was signed as you that you didn't write, you'd protest and we'd know something was up. Maybe after that we'd start questioning other things, and even emailing authors for confirmation every now and then. Thankfully, this isn't needed yet.
But I think most of the "business" of the wiki can be conducted anonymously. So even if we had to mistrust names, we could carry on discussion. I guess it wouldn't be the same kind of community anymore, though. And for making contentious decisions we'd probably end up email-verifying a bunch of things.
And no, I don't think a mailing list would be more efficient in that case. -- BayleShanks
the basic assertion that an online handle is not anonymous enough to be anonymous but not real enough to be real is somewhat silly. -- TheCunctator
I understand the UseRealNames argument, I think. Is "the basic assertion that an online handle is not anonymous enough to be anonymous but not committed enough to be commitment" more accurate? -- TheCunctator
PracticalObscurity isn't "hiding". An incendiary villification of what in the MeatSpace so adored by the UseRealNames proponents is common and non-problematic. I'm comfortable saying what I'm saying, as I'm sure other's in UseRealNamesCases are.
Obscuration is hiding. Dictionary:obscure
Wikis are public places. When different opinions come together, you will want to argue for your points. Very often the personal background and experience will play an important role. But you can only put your weight behind your arguments when you stand for them with your real personality.
For many of us who spend all our time in CyberSpace, our real personality is online, and invested in our chosen nicknames. Most of the stuff that LaurenceParry has done barely has any relevance to who or what I am, but GreenReaper is definitely me. -- Laurence (aka GreenReaper)
Some people believe that online communities are entertainment. Others believe that they create values and that its important to become a part of the community and an owner of what is created. You can't be a owner without a real identity (that's the disadvantage of a faked real name).
Aliases and pen names have long been accepted in courts of law. If people can prosecute you for being JackTheRipper?, you can prosecute others for stealing your work, as long as it is attributed to a clearly defined identity. -- Laurence (aka GreenReaper)
>> several Meatballers are ego-invested in the UseRealNames meme
Yes, I am. I am proud to sign my messages with my real name, and now that I've decided where I stand on this issue I am happy to promote UseRealNames. What's more I get a nice part-of-a-community feeling because I feel like supporting UseRealNames is protecting something that is cool about MeatBall.
and you will too once you start using your real name.. join usss.. join usss..)
You forget that we were here first.
That would be the RoyalWe, one must suppose.
So, it's really you who are demanding us to conform to your values.
Demand? Who is demanding anything? Do what you want--go ahead and use a your real name, if you like.
You can choose not to be here, and it's your desire to be here that's pulling us together to discuss it.
Yes, I *am* forcing you to type. Bend to my will!
.
In other words, instead of arguing about the policy I thought you wanted to just do stuff and see if others supported the policy enough to stop it; i.e. maybe there would turn out to be a "silent majority" which supported handles, in which case any deletions of your handles would get undeleted by others, etc. So just doing stuff sometimes makes sense. But if that was the presumption then I thought I was perfectly entitled to move your text here and delete the other page, too. Perhaps I was too hasty.
Please accept my apologies. Anonymity and pen names can improve the group process since it allows people to say what they feel without personal reprocussions. In EIES we asked realname, anonymous, or penname whenever a user entered an item. The nice thing was that pen names were shown in "quotes" so you could always distinguish them from real names. We also allowed a reserved the pen name so others could not use it. Though I seldom use it myself, anonymity has an important role in group communications. It is better that one says what they think in a pseudonym than to not speak. -- JimScarver
"It is better that one says what they think in a pseudonym than to not speak." That statement is a commonly accepted value in many online communities. SunirShah (the "editor" of Meatball) made a different choice of values when forming this community. I used to disagree strongly with that choice, but now I think that the anti-pseudonym policy is a reasonable one for this community. Meatball uses SoftSecurity guidelines which effectively require identification of participants. --CliffordAdams
If you want to be taken seriously, then you should try and address some grammatical errors in your writing (as above) - only then will your writing be seen as worthy of an academic letter-writing society. Names do not matter - content does. --anon.
You shouldn't assume people want to form friendships when they participate in a joint-editing project. I don't go to the library to make new friends, I go to the library to look stuff up, to check out books. I don't write a letter to my political representatives because I want to find new chums. Maybe in the process of exercising these mundanities of citizenship, I meet some people who become friends, but structuring these places or events based around friendship misses the mark. I didn't come here for a group hug, I'm here to fill in the stuff I think you get wrong, or that you haven't (apparently) thought about, or haven't thought through, or that you don't know about or sometimes just to correct a typo or . . . I'm here to tell you what that weird, multifaceted but slippery thing we have the hubris to call "the truth" looks like from over here, at some distance from where you're standing and looking at it. If we can be friends in the process, that's great, but it's a subsidiary goal, at most. -- anon.
Our founding metaphor is BarnRaising. That's only partly about the work, and mostly about the community. That's our philosophy because we feel it leads to better results. If you disagree, that's fine, but you should realize that is our position. -- SunirShah
I think that one makes a commitment to a community or a wiki by putting some damn work in, not waving a name badge. Actions count, not meaningless gestures. so that knocks down the "give us your real name so we can trust you" argument -- TarQuin
On most places on the Internet, the stakes are so low, it doesn't matter if you are trusted or not, so you can be a pseudonym or not. Do you really feel the stakes are that low on MeatballWiki? If so, why are you bothering us? -- SunirShah
UseRealNames still strikes me as a bit of a HardPolicy? for a site that believes in SoftSecurity. Daft names aren't desirable here; and we want to maintain a fairly serious atmosphere. But I think it is more within MB's principles to draw a soft line rather than a hard one: a FuzzyRule? rather than a HardRule?. Of course, that is much harder to enforce, simply because no hard line is drawn. Each case has to be decided separately. (cf. BuildInTolerance)
It isn't that hard. If you don't want to use your real name, you can PostAnonymously (more or less). This is really more pseudonymous than anonymous, but in this case we remove people's ability to call themselves MrHappyPants or what have you. Note that people do go and create well-known pseudonyms, like Tarquin, but we dampen their ability to pervade the site with them. Typically they just create a namepage, which we don't normally delete, and then post without signing. The community doesn't encourage that, as it is very disappointing, and you will have to fight harder to gain credibility from the violation of our trust in addition to the weakened SerialIdentity, but for now we're not willing to raise pitchforks.
Now I understand considering the number of battles we've had that it seems that we're hard on UseRealNames, but I think the heart of the issue wasn't the real names policy, but our desire to exclude flamebaiters. The real names policy is merely the front line, as no troll will use their real name. Which is the whole point. -- SunirShah
So what are you saying - that you had problems with trolls, but as you lacked the technical ability to stop them, so instead you rely on a policy that alienates those who simply prefer not to use their MeatSpace names? That sounds like a SocialProblem? looking for a TechnologicalSolution?, not a good excuse for continuing the policy. -- Laurence (aka GreenReaper)
It is also a mistake to believe anything you write on the Internet can ever be anonymous. This myth has repeatedly been defeated. The venerable anon.penet.fi fell to the Church of Scientology, for instance. While it's not enough to just claim that anonymity is impossible, for certainly we could make it easier, it's also wrong to give this power only to the site proprietors to abuse. In that case, by not publishing the IP, we create the illusion that you are anonymous. It wasn't clear that anon.penet.fi wasn't abusing its privilege, you just took their word for it. So, in the PostWELL world, users should accept this, at least until you can construct a better network (see FreeNet). Even HAM radios are traceable.
By the way, this reminds me: I would like to change the script to publish the last octet of the IP address. Currently it reads something like 127.0.0.xxx. This is bogus on two levels. First, Cliff and I have access to the full IPs. Second, those of us with hostnames, have them published fully resolved, creating an imbalance. Those opposed? -- SunirShah
This is true. I could amend the HitCounts script accordingly, although I'm not going to do this without a discussion. -- SunirShah
I will not support any attempt to publish the addresses of Meatball readers. (I would rather shut the site down.) The only exception would be general statistics like the number of unique readers, or the number of readers in different countries. --CliffordAdams
I was only teasing about you being a dramatic identity... it would have been very intriguing had it been true though! In the RealWorld I interact with people but I don't necessarily give them my address, or my surname, or my telephone number. [ Yes, this problem in availing of PracticalObscurity is one that UseRealNames proponents frequent fail to address or acknowledge] I suppose I draw a heavier line between my private and public sides than you do. By your definition, I use "Tarquin" as a nick name rather than a pen name: I'm not using it to hide, it's just my choice of (consistent) label. My lack of a real name actually tells you more about me than my real name would: I'm a non-conforming co-operator, with an occasional cavalier disregard for rules. ;-) -- Tarquin
In the RealWorld I interact with people but I don't necessarily give them my address, or my surname, or my telephone number.
Since this is also the "RealWorld", the question is, are you merely "interacting" with people here on MeatballWiki? Aren't you doing something more defined, more involved? I think you would be hard pressed to continue volunteering at any organization without ever introducing yourself, and you certainly wouldn't be trusted if you introduced yourself as Homey the Clown.
Using something that LOOKS like a real name is completely useless. I don't use a pseudonym here or elsewhere to hide my identity, and I wish to be totally open, contactable and to have a consistent, non-morphing identity. But I've been using the handle Oneiromancer or, when unavailable, PrinceOfStories? since I was 15, and that's just who I am online. It allows me more consistentcy to be known this way than by using my birth name, and what's more, it allows me a layer of protection. Now, I don't much beleive in the idea of rampant internet stalkers or anything, but I don't want an employer or someone who thinks I stole their girlfriend or something from "real life" going to find out as much as they can about me and finding everything I ever wrote about online. My online and offline identity are permanantly connected, and I'm not saying someone who really wants to can't break from either one to the other one, but it does provide a modicum of insulation, like a firewall, and I don't see any real benefit to the community, its members, or myself, to removing that layer of insulation, or that connection to my history online. My name won't mean anything to you unless you know me peronally, which is unlikely, but my pseodonym might. It's a lot more likely in an online community with some common interests to cross paths with someone from elsewhere online then from elsewhere in person.
PS - the "kind-of pseudonym" offered above is unsatisfactory, because a) I don't want anonymity, I want consistency b) I do change computers and IPs all the time, so not only would I not have consistent identity with myself elsewhere online, but I wouldn't have consistent identity with myself here. I came across WikiWiki by way of c2.com, and maybe if this is unacceptable to you I'll just stick with them, but you need to see the failure of such requirements. I know the well did it, and for a time thrived, but it just doesn't make sense. -- PrinceOfStories?
Even after the exhaustive discusion of the subject, I've seen only one solid reason for using a pseudonym: if a person has used a single pseudonym all over the net, that person is better known by his handle than his real name. I don't think that outweighs the advantages of UseRealNames, especially when you can explain on your HomePage "Hi, my usual handle is Snaps Weatherbane". -- StephenGilbert
well how about "because I would like to"? -- TarQuin
Goddammit, yes. Why can't people just admit that? That's the motivation for all these arguments, but to date you are the first pseudonymous person to say this. I know I've suggested that reason many times before, and I've been surprised that no one has admitted to it. I think the case for pseudonyms has been hurt by being so disappointing when it comes to being emotionally honest, which I think is a fundamental quality of MeatballWiki's efforts. -- SunirShah
is UseRealNames creating more problems than it prevents? -- TarQuin
If MeatballWiki intends to become the central point for wikis in general, it may be necessary to drop the real names requirement to match the policies of the other sites that we integrate with.
Because I am not comfortable using my real name, and because you and others apparently feel strongly that I should, I simply will not come back, and, in all likelihood, will not use wikis. --anon.
It's not a demand. UseRealNames is a demand, one that is enforced. The use of PenNames?? just is. We use them. You act against them, and try to rationalize it. --anon.
Sometimes people don't trust the community. They may believe that they will be discriminated if they give their real identity. That's no problem if you are white, male and North American. It might be a problem if you are from Mexico, Iraq or Pakistan. It's a responsibility of the community to show that these fears have no foundation.
There are famous people that interact online quite naturally. Other think that they might be attacked in a way they are not used to, that they will make errors and be ridiculed or loose their face in other imaginable ways. So they may prefer to use a pseudonym which acts as a kind of protection.
the real-life community argument is based on a North American model of real-life Disney-communities where everyone has perfect teeth and smiles all day (okay, I'll toen down the sarcasm in the final edit, promise) -- TarQuin
I think there are cultural differences between North America and (say) the UK which cause problems here: we're not dealing with the same frames of rreference ... I get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that North Americans give their name & surname as soon as they meet someone -- at least this is what I see on TV and in films. In the UK, we ... well, we just don't. I live in a small village of about 2,000 people, and 90% of the people I say hello to don't know my name, and vice-versa. Those that do probably only know my first name. It was over 2 years before the (regular) staff at the library and I began to be on first-name terms. Over the last 6 months I've become good friends with a guy on my street, and it was about 3 months before he got round to asking my surname. In fact, those that do know my full name are those I've had a business contact with, such as the local plumber. Now Meatball is meant to be a community, not a business relationship, no? And it's not just small communities, I've lived in London too. (this is not the same anonymous user as the previous anon comment BTW... ;-)
And yet... I read an article recently that put forth the notion that for people in the US, a fundamental underpinning of freedom is the ability to be anonymous. It struck me as novel. I had never thought about it that way before, but now that I have, I must say I agree. --anon.
As for individualism, it is clear that several Meatballers are ego-invested in the UseRealNames meme. It is clear that dissention about what could be HealthyConflict is suppressed here, the message is "submit, and then discuss". The act of submission, though, also concedes the point. So, it comes down to, basically "agree, or leave". Hence the conflict is suppressed, rather than resolved. No synthesis ensues.
Ironically, I just wrote about that paradox on OutcastNewcomer. I agree with you that it's potentially bad, but it's also not sufficient to just accept anyone. Extreme liberalism is like forcing consensus, a totally failed concept.
Since no organization is completely egalitarian, unless you prevent people from communicating altogether, you have to accept that there will be power imbalances. Fortunately, there are many middle grounds between totalitarianism and pigeon holing, like FairProcess. I don't hear anyone proposing anything better than our middle ground, which is permitting anonymous users to post in the first place.
It could also go the other way. For instance, we could adopt WhyClublet's luncheon policy, where you have to meet someone face to face to join. If you want, we could do the same here as well. It can always go another direction. The challenge is to find something reasonable.
What's wrong with submit, then discuss? It's not like you're a political minority being denied the right to vote. There is no catch-22 here. You do not lose the chance to ever disagree by giving in once.
>> The act of submission, though, also concedes the point.
Well, no, it doesn't concede the point, although we would all know what your real name was. But you could still argue against real names. It's not like we'd be able to say, "Oh, you don't really mean that, because you just told us your real name!". You wouldn't be giving up any rhetorical ground.
-- BayleShanks
[Is SunirShah a real name?] I can muse on this, but ultimately, I have to make a choice: to interact with you on your own terms, or not. As you can see I'm still posting as an IP. :-) I appreciate the spectre of the TragedyOfTheCommons hangs over a community like this. I'm just not sure that the line you have drawn is effective. -- anon.
You may wish to contemplate the following:
-- HansWobbe
I don't like putting this on the end of a nice re-factored page like this, but I noticed there is one big issue with the use of real names that hasn't been addressed here - what if there are duplicate real names? A RealName is much less likely to be unique than a pseudonym. I generally prefer using my RealName to any of the pseudonyms I have picked up, but to interact on the Internet it is absolutely necessary to have a pseudonym, because all the usernames are already taken with real names on many large services, and so to maintain a coherant identity a unique pseudonym is required. My pseudonym is more likely to give you information on my identity than my RealName - just compare googling for the two. --MichelleHart?, usually known as ChessyPig?
There exists a legal (pre)sumption that Name Address is a 'unique' identifier.
One of the reasons that news stories about criminal convictions generally use "Joe Blow, of 123 Anystreet" (even going so far as to cite "Joe Blow, of No Fixed Address) is that Name Address are generally assumed to be a unique identifier.
Extrapolating this a bit beyond the previous specific case of a 'residential' address by recognizing 'residence' as one of several 'domains' into which an address is a pointer...
helps solve the case of duplicate names, at least within a community such as meatball, where I am unlikely to encounter another HansWobbe.
Expanding beyond the facet of 'domains', other 'scope' concepts can also be considered. For example:
-- HansWobbe
One of the primary reasons for choosing my usual handle is that it is unique to me: as of last Google every instance of it on the web referred to me or something associated with me, whereas there are several other people online with my name, some of whom are similar enough in some respects that their output could be confused with mine. (I make it a trivial effort to find the RealName behind the handle. I want people to know my identity -- which is why I use the handle. Though I do sometimes like my gender not to be immediately apparent.) -- KatWalsh
Hey, don't know if this is the appropriate page for this. I'm not sure the categorizing of the page UseRealNames is a good idea; it adds more than the minimal number of links to a "for beginners" page. I doubt that people looking for pages in CategoryIdentity, etc would manage to forget about UseRealNames; but if necessary, I suggest the page be linked to by CategoryIdentity and CategoryRealNames. Also, we want people curious about UseRealNames to first look at WhyUseRealNames before they get lost in CategoryIdentity, right? -- BayleShanks
Perhaps. My main motivation was collecting all the pages to be refactored. We can remove the category labels later. -- SunirShah
I hope my additional tweaks don't get in anyone's way. -- HansWobbe
I am not sure whether this is the right place to post my message: I have written some interesting papers on online communities and I was interested to publish them on your wiki, which I was reading for some time. After I noticed your policy on realnames I decided not to come here again, not even as a reader. GoodBye.
Journals are offline and friendly but this place is unfriendly since it doesn't respect my privacy.
There are also other visitors than Meatball community members. They lurk here, or may write something without revealing their names. Or they use a search engine to find all the pages with my name. I trust you but I don't trust those lurkers. If I wrote here with my real name, some of them could use it against me, to manipulate me, to discriminate me in Internet or outside it. I shall not write here with my real name unless I can watch the watchers. (This argument should have its very own heading.)