All posts in the topic Anonymity, Accountability and Identity (Short link)
Summary
- There are 20 posts — by 9 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Geoff Reid at 2007 Jun 20 12:12 UTC
The Writing governance statements thread throws up some interesting points which I think are well worth exploring further. Firstly, and for the record, I want to make it very clear that Im not what youd describe as academically, commercially or politically motivated.....Im just interested in getting others re-involved with stuff. Ill start with something Jill said: Quote Starts: Everyone who contributes on our site, whether citizen journalist, councillor, individual, police officer, campaigner, does so in their own name and everyone knows who that is. I think it fair that if accountability is expected, everyone should be prepared to be accountable for what they put in the public domain and why. Quote ends. Id love to agree with Jill, but I dont. Establishing someones identity doesn't guarantee either honesty or accountability from that person, and one needs look no further than the last 9 years of government for a multitude of cogent examples. Insisting that public servants only contribute using their real names only guarantees that their input will be politically correct and standards board friendly. Personally speaking I prefer to hear genuinely held opinions and belief, not sanitised-for-the-public-domain statements. Provided they arent up to no good, any person has the lawful right to use a pseudonym....and forum operators have the equally lawful right to allow, or disallow their use, although in practice I think effectively enforcing a no-pseudonyms policy is difficult and will inhibit the very thing that we want to encourage, i.e the engagement of people with democracy, local government and each other. I like to imagine that there are several stages of e-dem spread out along a horizontal straight line. At the left hand end are forums like Talkswindon, (light on rules), in the middle we find the more formalised organisations like Oncom, and at the right hand end we have, (or will have), full-on and identity checked e-voting systems. As we move from left to right the rules, structure and methodology become more rigid, (by necessity), and the atmosphere more rarified and highbrow, and in my own opinion steadily less interesting to the average punter. My own feeling is that if we want to encourage the average, (but currently disengaged), punter to become at least slightly interested in becoming involved with high-end e-dem, e.g e-voting, then they must be tempted to dip their toes in at the other end of the e-dem scale within community forums, especially those which enjoy a working relationship with local councillors. Id like to give you the recent example of two, (previously unknown to each other), Talkswindon members who only post under pseudonyms. They used the forum to discuss a particular issue of non-inclusive play area equipment, (childrens), contacted local councillors via the forum, met the councillors in person to inspect the areas in question then went to a council meeting in chamber, asked public questions and subsequently obtained promises of corrective action on the part of the Council and Heritage Lottery fund. The relevant thread can be found here: http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php?topic=1652.msg9060#msg9060 This particular case is on-going, but I'd suggest that the instant that these two members made normal contact with the relevant councillors, any issue regarding their use of pseudonyms became completely irrelevant. I have asked the councillors whether they felt the members use of pseudonyms was an issue, and they said no. In fact, one of the councillors reasoned that using pseudonyms was an entirely intelligent thing for females to do on tinternet, and members use of pseudonyms hadnt discouraged them from engaging either on the forum or with the members themselves. On-forum anonymity does not seem to hinder initial, and continued on-line interaction between members and councillors, and the many subsequent face to face meetings have served to lay solid foundations for a forum which now has one foot firmly in both the real world, and its virtual mirror. I think the desire to know who someone is and issuing pre-emptive threats of moderation, censorship or deletion of objectionable comment, (in the opinion of moderators), does little to attract new, free thinking and innovative members, but a whole lot to attract a membership of like-minded people who like, or perhaps even need an overt and rigid framework of control, to be comfortable. Im not saying that Talkswindon is necessarily any better than any other forum of its kind, but it is slightly different. Having very few proscribed activities means it is emminently adaptable and will expand and evolve according to its own needs and wont be constrained by an exoskeleton of inflexible rules. We refuse to prematurely place every new member under suspicion of being potentially naughty and we do not pre-determine the standard by which individual members succeed or fail in their on-line activity, the forum self-moderates and self-educates as it goes. Another quote from Jill: Quote Starts: We find this works very well in every way on our local community network at www.oncom.org.uk and is the only real guarantee of achieving credibility, courtesy and effectiveness. This has always been our policy. Those who aren't prepared to stand up and be counted don't participate, which is their choice. Quote Ends. I disagree completely with this statement and Im particularly surprised by the last sentence which I wouldnt find very inviting if I were already nervous of dipping my toes into the world of Oncom, because the choice to participate anonymously has already been removed. How do we measure credibility and effectiveness?, I measure it by results, in which case Talkswindon, (as small as it is), is already credible and effective. How important is courtesy?. Local politics resembles a dog-fight at times and courtesy flies out of the window faster than a escaped parrotand then usually returns, shamefaced a little bit later. Rudeness happens, its a fact of life, but reasonable people usually apologise, discuss and carry on with life. If e-dem is to succeed at an everyday level it needs to be realistic about its aims and expectations, and it also needs to be sympathetic and adaptive to the general nature of the very people it wishes to enagage, then enable them to engage in a manner which is both comfortable, enjoyable and dare I say it....entertaining!. A final question. How would everyone here deal with this posting made under a pseudonym?. Thread Author & Title: Mr Lucky: " Disleskic People" Quote Starts: "Honestly, there really is no such thing. They're just thick, lazy people who can't be bothered to get off their backsides and read for themselves. I have never come across a more idle group of people End Quote.
Thanks Geoff for this well thought out post. I have been following all the
contributions on the annonimity issue with interest and I think this is the
best one. I can see how at a formal institutional consultative level there can
be a need to require real names, but in forums like Talkswindon and Oncom, and
countless other similar community forum, including the YouScotland.com forum I
currently moderate and the Scottish Parliament ones I used to moderate, I can
see no need for it. Requiring the use of real names in reality does nothing
much other than exclude people. Because there are lost of reason people would
rather not use their real names on a public forum - the women with young
children Geoff mentions doubly hits this nail on the head. And there are
clearly lots of public sector people and people working for companies or bodies
relying on the public sector for contracts etc, who might be more than a little
reluctant to give a name and address when posting to a forum cricical of their
local council etc.
I have always thought the basic rules of a non virtual meeting is a good place
to start when setting forum rules and protocols. And I have been at few real
public meetings ( indeed none I can recall) that have required anyone that
wants to speak to say who they are before they are allowoed to. Clearly those
who say who they are where they are from etc often to carry more weight as a
result, but its up to the individual surely? The Oncon rules seem akin to a
chair at a real meeting telling somebody they cant speak unless they supply a
name and a verified address - absurd, and likely to get the chair booed down
I'd suggest.
Ultimately every community must determine its own rules, but I'd have thought
good moderation using ISP details and email addresses to descretely weed out
any obviously and dangererous imposters is a better way to go rather than
excluding everyone who does not wish to use a real name.
Hi, some interesting points, but you've really lost me on why you feel that women especially need to protect their identity online- -especially in a community forum. I can't fathom it at all. Please explain -Ella Ella Smith International Teledemocracy Centre Napier University 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh, EH10 5DT Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392 Fax: +44 (0) 131 455 2282 Email: <email obscured> http://itc.napier.ac.uk This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
Hi Ella
Perhaps a better place to start from would be examining why some e-dem
practictioners deliberately deny an individual the choice to protect their
identity as a pre-condition to their involvement ?.
I can think of many valid reasons why men, and women, would wish to protect
their identity, none of them nefarious...
...but I would like to explore whether other readers can identify those same
reasons, and once they are identified I wonder whether they would then accept
that denying these groups anonymous access is simply wrong.
Hi Geoff, Maybe we could just sort out the women thing first? reading through your post again, I realise that you are quoting someone else: "In fact, one of the councillors reasoned that using pseudonyms was an entirely intelligent thing for females to do on tinternet" and Alan seems to agree "Because there are lost of reason people would rather not use their real names on a public forum - the women with young children Geoff mentions doubly hits this nail on the head." I am missing what ever it is that you are trying to say that would apply to men but not women or vice versa. Secondly - "Rudeness happens, its a fact of life, but reasonable people usually apologise, discuss and carry on with life." This may be true in some situations, but personally I avoid online contexts where people are being rude. I don't think I'm alone in that. If rudeness is accepted, then many people (who probably have really great contributions to make) won't hang around. -Ella Ella Smith International Teledemocracy Centre Napier University 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh, EH10 5DT Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392 Fax: +44 (0) 131 455 2282 Email: <email obscured> http://itc.napier.ac.uk This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
Women and the internet is I think a different issue but a huge one, Go for
example to Scotsman.com blog/forums ( incredibly popular, thousands of posts a
day, worth a look , much more participatory than the Times /Guardian etc and in
a country a 10th the size). But you would be excused from thinking 90% of this
country is male. Simarly I can tell you that 80% plus of the members of
YouScotland.com , fourum I moderate are male, despite great efforts on our
part to counter this.
In short, in terms of political/current affairs e-discourse there is a huge
gender imbalance, and this is not a phenenemum exclusive to Scotland, though we
may be a little worse than most.
Why is this case? Not at all sure, as most of the "bariers to participation" of
the non virtual world seem to be lacking, indeed the web appears to be in
theory a geneder neutral medium for participation - your time, your space etc.
But in reality it aint, not by a long way as far as I can see.
One reason, though only one - and I see it regualarly on the Scotsman forum (
I flag it up to moderators) - is that when women post they are near
immediately "chatted up" and subject to, not necessarily crude, but pretty
obvious sexual innuendo. Don't belive me? - just try posting. Another is that
women politicians in the news and the subject of political controversy - in
Scotland, Kirsty Wark, Wendy Alexander and our new Deputy First Minster Nicola
Sturgeon come to mind - are near always subjected to a level of personal abuse
about their appearance, being called "stupid bitches" ( or worse) which a man,
no matter how controversial would not have to put up with.
I know more than a few female e-actvist who, aware of this, post using either
geneder neutral or even implicity male name. A huge issue for another strand I
think. But a reason, and very real one, why women will be more reluctant than
men to give real names. And as there already is a problem with female
e-participation levels, why make it worse by insisting on actual idendtities
online?
And just where are the female political bloggers?
Has there been any resarch done on any of this, is there any ongoing? If not,
maybe there should be.
Well said Ella. Rudeness does deter people from taking part and it is quite
understandable - most offputting.. I see no particular issues with women
and the internet - why should there be? We are all citizens in active life,
why be afraid, and what of? The greatest incentive to courteous debate is
for people to partidipate in their own names. We feel that if they are not
happy with that, there are anonymous forums. We take a great many risks at
www.oncom.org.uk and believe that people should stand up to be counted in a
democracy. You know the old saying about justice being seen to be done. It
is the only way to have civilized, influential, intelligent debate, of that
I am convinced - from experience and observation. Unattributed, anything
can be discounted, and it is. Officers rarely take part anyway. Junior
officers are forbidden and senior officers unwilling, only very occasionally
writing some informative and then of course they use their own names.
Whistleblowing is another thing altogether to reams of anonymous postings,
and that deserves special consideration.
We have plenty of women using the VoxPop and publishing as citizen
journalists, as you can see at www.oncom.org.uk. As far as I know (and I
would hear about it), we have not had any problems, men or women. I
certainly haven't. I can't imagine being chatted up! Tell 'em where to
get off.... Mary Reid blogs, LibDem councillor in Kingston on Thames.
I have a longer post in me ... but for now a question:
* Is there any research on the
quality/volume/deliberateness/diversity/safety/agenda-setting/decision-making
influence of different kinds of online exchanges online?
My sense is that your goals - from the volume of posts/traffic to engaging to
the largest cross-section of the population - should help you choose the right
rules/format rather than what most people do as the Internet default.
Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org
When we launched our e-petitions website back in 2004, the first issues were
male-dominated but the stats changed in 2005 when we had our first big issue on
plastics recycling (nearly 5000 signatures). Since then, females have been
consistently slightly higher users of the site according to the exit survey.
Our e-panel consultation site also has slightly higher numbers of female
registrations but they probably aren't as vocal as the male participants
(although I haven't analysed it to much detail and as many people use
pseudonyms it's not always easy to spot them). My suspicion is that it depends
on the issue though.
For our neighbourhood issues forum I'd say that females post at least as
regularly as males if not more.
So, overall in my experience in Bristol, women are as active within
e-participation as men.
With regards to the Scotsman's forums I'm shocked that women are being
subjected to harrassment and not being pulled up for it.
Hi, Reading back through these posts, it's interesting to see a very good argument for participants using pseudonyms matched by equally good arguments for participants to be very public about their identity. What's especially interesting is the similarity of the contexts - 2 independent local community forums. (Though I can see that they're different under the surface!) I'd be really interested to hear of people's experience of this identity/anonymity question within other contexts. For example - Local Issues Forums (UK link: http://www.e-democracy.org/uk/) ask all participants to use their own names. How well did this aspect cross the Atlantic? Also, I'd be interested to hear from those of you who've been involved in forums in particularly sensitive contexts - possibly some of the Irish e-consultations http://www.e-consultation.org/ might have required a specific approach. -Ella Ella Smith International Teledemocracy Centre Napier University 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh, EH10 5DT Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392 Fax: +44 (0) 131 455 2282 Email: <email obscured> http://itc.napier.ac.uk This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
I wonder if the best solution is a pseudonym user name, with the
ability to have ones real name made available in a profile page,
possibly only viewable by community members.
In I'm a Councillor (www.bivote.org.uk) we're quite happy for young people
to use pseudonyms. In fact we encourage it so that shy students feel
emboldened to ask any question they want rather than what they feel they
should ask.
Last year we ran the event in Northern Ireland for the first time and were
asked to enforce a zero-tolerance regime to sectarianism. We had to remove
just two out of nearly 500 students from the site.
Smith, Ella wrote: > For example - Local Issues Forums (UK link: > http://www.e-democracy.org/uk/) ask all participants to use their own > names. How well did this aspect cross the Atlantic? In a practical sense, those with experience with e-mail lists understand the value of real names quite easily. Those with mostly alias-based web forum experiences have raised concerns. In our rules we do allow exceptions for people with court ordered protection or folks from oppressive regimes - although we have not had a request. In our current survey the value of civil discussion is the most important aspect polling through so far: Not Important Very Important A. Diverse participants 3.5% (7) 3.0% (6) 12.9% (26) 32.3% (65) *48.3% (97)* 4.19 201 B. Diverse viewpoints 3.5% (7) 0.5% (1) 14.4% (29) 31.2% (63) *50.5% (102)* 4.25 202 C. Civil discussion 2.5% (5) 3.5% (7) 8.5% (17) 22.5% (45) *63.0% (126)* 4.40 200 etc. It is our decade plus experience that says for more civil discussion, use real names, have rules, and someone empowered, yet accountable, to enforce them. I do agree that there should be ways for those who "fear public speaking" or fear being held accountable/being personally attacked online/retribution/or being viewed negatively in the community to express themselves online. I also need to note, that if a forum/e-consultation were government-run I'd expect anonymous input options but as a taxpayer I'd want them to strongly encourage real names or they'd be wasting my tax dollars on the systems that promote more conflict in the community. Also, youth/educational environments are a completely different matter due to all sort of legal and security concerns. A few other comments, if your goal is higher volume discussion and a broad range of topics from news and politics to local sports, etc. then aliases are the way to go. That isn't our primary goal. Others do well with that kind of format. In Winona, a small MN city, they noticed that when the local paper added the ability to comment anonymously on articles (annotate) that traffic on the Issues Forum decreased. They had a nice article on Saturday - http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2007/06/16/news/04demo0616.txt : "Winona forum moderator Roy Nasstrom said he saw a decrease in participation when the Winona Daily News began allowing readers to comment online last year. “Some people prefer dealing with things anonymously because they can be more critical,” he said. I kind of liked the first comment: I prefer this blog... wrote on Jun 17, 2007 10:43 AM: " ...so I can whine like a baby, be negative about everything and call people out...courageously...anonymously. " Brighton and Hove might be an interesting case study/opportunity for content analysis comparing: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/bh/ With: http://forum.theargus.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4d04ee67a6fcf9e484380582b7b5f49a http://www.brightonlife.com/forums/list/1.html As well as: http://www.scip.org.uk/scip/join_in/scip_list The Argus switched forum technology so all of their old posts are gone and they also now allow comments on stories - so commentary is diffuse. Quite interestingly most media sites do not allow you to share URLs especially to things they may view competitive. I tried to post the link to Brighton and Hove collection of May election links and instead had to give instructions on keywords to use in Google to find the page. Finally, when folks have gamed our "real names" system (we suspend accounts pending identity proof only if have a reason to believe you aren't who you say you are which is actually quite easy locally if someone seems to know too much AND no one has heard of them before) our participants get very very testy. We promised them real names and they expect us to deliver. I would guess that a forum that attracts people based on the promise that you can be anonymous would find a similar level of support for the incumbent model if they tried to switch gears and require real names and may even receive serious blow back if mid-stream they decided to simply strongly encourage real names. Again, let me say that your terms and approach should match your democratic/organisational/governmental/commercial goals - technology is not destiny. The trick is that many of the choices are not obvious, poorly researched, and sometimes counterintuitive. You'll also find that what works one year may not work the next or not in the next town do to past conflicts in local politics or their decision-making culture. I do think the topic of encouraging women to participate publicly online in political activities deserves closer attention. It has been our experience that the more local we go, the less ideological the discussions, and the more likely they appear to attract broader participation of women as well as men who are not pounding their chests with ideological fists. However, you do find that local politics is much more personality based and off-line conflicts, perhaps decades old, can make it into your forum and easily cross into uncivil territory. Oh, one more quote from the Winona article, “If 99 percent of online political discussion is junk, ours is only 25 percent junk.” Steven Clift E-Democracy.Org
Hi all.
Ella, you said:
"Reading back through these posts, it's interesting to see a very good
argument for participants using pseudonyms matched by equally good
arguments for participants to be very public about their identity".
I'm not sure that the two arguments are equally matched for the following
reason.
Jill maintains that the Oncom way is: "the only way to have civilized,
influential, intelligent debate", yet oncom cannot empirically prove this to be
the case because, by her own admission, Oncom does not allow anonymous
contributions. Oncom can only state that its debates are civilised, intelligent
and influential, it cannot prove that denying anonymous posting makes this so.
On the other hand we have Talkswindon, which enjoys intelligent, influential
and civilised debate between members who do identify themselves and members who
post anonymously.
Talkswindon may be very much younger than Oncom, but in 10,675 posts made in
1,749 topics only 1 post has been removed by admin, and that only happened
after a detailed arbitration discussion with the members concerned. The post
was then removed by mutual consent.
The removed post represents 0.009 % of total content.
Jills argument for validating identity in all cases just doesn't stand up well
when examined against the Talkswindon example.
I will concede that there may be geographic and demographical reasons why the
populace in Richmond is more likely to misbehave, and people in Swindon less
likely to....although I can't think of any. My own opinion is that insisting on
'real-i.d' creates a closed-shop, private club mentality which might appear
entirely successful when examined and measured from within, but is actually
self-isolating when viewed from without.
Anyway, earlier in this thread I said:
"I can think of many valid reasons why men, and women, would wish to protect
their identity, none of them nefarious, but I would like to explore whether
other readers can identify those same
reasons, and once they are identified I wonder whether they would then accept
that denying these groups anonymous access is simply wrong".
I note that none of the anti-anonymity contributors have chosen to answer this,
possibly because advocates of the more authoritarian approach to controlling
participation tend to focus on reasons for 'not allowing', and then using them
to justify various acts of proscriptive control.
As you can tell, I favour the more libertarian approach because I believe it
encourages greater inclusivity, choice and opportunity for people to
participate. The libertarian approach might neccessitate a greater tolerance of
a wider range of behaviour and posting habits, but being prepared to adopt a
'warts and all' approach is hugely rewarding in terms of a diverse membership
and the content it produces. As yet there has been no bad, or offensive,
behaviour on Talskwindon which is worth special mention and nothing which has
resulted in as much as a warning.
Might I ask Jill and Ella first, (and other contributors after), how they would
approach the following two scenarios?.
They are current and real.
Scenario 1: Member 'A' is a local councillor who is registered as himself.
Last night, member 'A' was arrested for kerb crawling and soliciting a known
prostitute. It is the 2nd time in the last 10 years he has been arrested for
the same offence. At the time of his first offence, member 'A' was also the
Mayor of Swindon, and was using the Mayoral car to solicit prostitutes.
Member 'B' joins the forum under a pseudonym. She is the prostitute who member
'A' was arrested for soliciting. She has joined the forum because a debate on
legalising and regulating prostitution in Swindon has just begun, and she
wishes to contribute, although she doesn't want her true identity to be known
because her family do not know that she is a prostitute.
Scenario 2: Member 'C' is a battered spouse now separated from their violent
partner. 'C' is an upstanding member of the community, a professional who is at
the top of their field. 'C' is a lovely person, university educated, erudite,
knowledgeable, helpful and kind. 'C' is a model citizen, everybody wants 'C' to
be their friend and colleague.
'C' does not want their partner to find them. Although 'C' has moved town and
job, their ex-partner has found them once before and assaulted them quite
badly.
'C' doesn't go out much now, but does like to be involved with their adopted
community and does much good community work. The internet is a perfect medium
for 'C' to remain engaged and participate. 'C' worries constantly about
releasing details of their identity.
Three quick questions to ponder then....
How would Oncom empower members 'B' and 'C' to safely participate?.
Would Oncom encourage them to participate by bending its own rules slightly, or
would it still enforce its 'real-i.d' rule regardless of 'B' & 'C's
circumstances?.
Does Oncom seek to deliberately exclude certain 'types', or will they accept
anyone, just as long as they identify themselves?.
My own understanding is that Member 'A', already being an identified member,
can continue to post on Oncom, even though he appears to be a habitual criminal
who has previously misused council property, but the prostitute cannot
contribute to the debate, despite having a good reason to.
Will the battered spouse even get past Oncoms front door?.
I probably should have added the word 'inclusivity' to the thread title because
the further you travel down the road of only 'granting' access to discussions
to those people prepared to submit to identity verification, the less it looks
like an exercise in openness, inclusivity and democracy, and the more it begins
to look like something else entirely. (no offence intended).
Good debate! Here at netmums we take the view that real names make it more...well, real... I suppose we have a halfway house as we use people's first names So when people post on local boards it says, for example, 'Clare says' and on our national Forum 'Clare R (68)' - so she's the 68th Clare R to have registered. On the really sensitive boards for domestic violence, abuse and other serious stuff, people can also post anonymously - as Jane Doe rather than with a pseudonym. I dont know if it makes a difference to how people behave, but I'm certain it doesnt lessen the debate and it might stem rudeness. However, as a community forum, I think that how/whether forums are moderated has just as big an influence. Netmums is moderated to ensure it is a supportive environment for people coming who are vulnerable or struggling for some reason. We remove posts and threads that are offensive or targeting another person. Having set the tone very clearly at the beginning, people coming in see it and respect the way people talk to each other - it is self-perpetuating - and those who dont like it go elsewhere! So when it came to our discussions with Harriet Harman in March, it was constructive and highlighted differences in places. It was an open debate and no need for moderation of course. http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/forumdisplay.php?f=459 Which contrasts rather clearly with sites which are not moderated at all and so have developed a rather more 'anything goes' atmosphere. Someone showed me an example on Mumsnet yesterday (confusingly similar name unfortunately!) The difference is quite clear in their discussion with Beverley Hughes http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk?rn=33466&topicid=222&threadid=324582&redir=33466 I know these aren't e-democracy forums alone, and so it's a slightly different perspective, but anyhow - something to add into the mix! Sally
There is a danger of this getting overpolarised. The question is what is best?
Both are ok and quite acceptable, and ultimately it is surely down to the
community concerned to decide its own rules?
If I can offer YouScotland as an example - we do not INSIST on real namest when
we launched in February wee did say we'd much PREFER if peoeple used real names
and inititally pushed this quite strongly - certainly I and fellow steering
group members continue to use real names. But despite this, the majority of
out community members have chosen to use nicknames/pseudonyms. We could I
suppose write to them and ask them to change, or even in theory deny them
access for failing to. But what would be the point? I've seen no evidence that
those using nicknames etc are more abusive or argumentative etc than those who
use real names. Indeed we've had no problems with anybody. And if we did I
moderastors warning email or even banning order would surely do the trick?
Despite having a personal preference for real names, I am left asking if people
using nicknames/pseudonyms devalue our forum, makes it any less credible etc? I
don't think so.
I can hence see I am fighting a losing battle, and suggest those more
fundamentally committed to real names are to. But why get hung up on it? Why
waste energy enforcing it? It's not as though you really can, people will just
vote with their feet and not participate, go elsewhere. And let's really get
"real" - just look at Myspace, YouTube, bebo and near near all the mass social
networking sites and see how inpossible it is to stem the nickname tide. I
think those of us who are tying to harnss the net for citizenship type
discourse would be best advised to go with the flow, swim with the tide rather
than against it and accept the net has its own protocals and by and large an
insistance on real names ain't one of them.
Hi, Geoff, I think you have misunderstood. The important thing (as has been pointed out a few times in this thread and the previous one) is that different contexts require different rules. In the scenarios you give anonymity is important in enabling various people's participation. (I've been known to harangue people about our electoral registration system for similar reasons and I think the Electoral Commission's work around is just not good enough). More to the point -pseudonyms seem to be working very well for Talk Swindon. (Plus - was it the Hansard Society who organised an e-consultation with survivors of domestic violence - in 2000? This worked because the medium enables anonymity AND discussion) On the other hand, there are times when full names are helpful. 1 - Consultations which aim to have an impact on government may need to be able to trace participants to a particular constituency. 2 - Anonymity may make it difficult to bar participants. (Ok, we've seen that having to bar people doesn't happen so often -though busier sites - like Caithness.org can often have problems with people spamming the forum). 3 - Many people feel it makes participants more polite if their name is attached and this seems to have worked well for both the Local Issues Forum and Oncom. Equally, there are levels of anonymity. A name may be registered and known by the organisers, but not publicly displayed. In many contexts this is very useful. However, in some (e.g. a politically unstable region or one without freedom of speech) this is not a good idea. We are pretty lucky in the UK to have this choice as anyone who was reading about blogging in Iran last week will realise: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2096632,00.html -ella Ella Smith International Teledemocracy Centre Napier University 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh, EH10 5DT Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392 Fax: +44 (0) 131 455 2282 Email: <email obscured> http://itc.napier.ac.uk This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
Hello again...
Alan, you said: "There is a danger of this getting overpolarised. The question
is what is best?"
This was entirely deliberate on my part.
As Ella says:
"The important thing is that different contexts require different
rules".
She is quite right of course, and although Ella thinks I've misunderstood, this
is actually a concept I understand, but I'm not sure others do... which is why
I've whittled my questions down, and supplied working examples to reinforce the
point that different contexts do require different rules, but that adopting
different rules doesn't necessarily make them any better, or worse, than other
organisations, just different.
So, when an organisation decides upon the particular context within which it
invites content to be added, and sets its rules of engagement accordingly, how
can it then claim that this particular context/rules combination is the ONLY
way to have civilized, influential, intelligent debate outside of it's own,
narrowly defined context?.
It's obvious that it can't, and comparing a 'one-size-fits-all' rule in a
strictly defined and controlled context/environment against a multi-contextual,
flexible-rules environment is probably not something that should be tossed so
off-handedly into the discussion, or dismissed so casually with, dare I say,
just a hint of condescension. Further to this, I think a touch of
territoriality sometimes clouds clear, objective and realistic thought which
can lead to 'our way is better than your way' positions being adopted and
stubbornly retained.
I've spent some time picking on Oncoms' rules, but this hasn't been because I
don't admire what Oncom has achieved or think that forums like Talkswindon
can't learn from it, or vice versa. I haven't made much mention of Talkswindons
rules, (because it has largely replaced rules with expectations), but the forum
has become multi-contextual with multiple levels of membership and posting
rights which have been arrived at in an adaptive, almost organic fashion. This
makes the general structure of the forum quite strong I think.
The forum 'community' is further strengthened by a steadily increasing element
of personal interaction between members off-forum at council meetings and
interest group meetings. Very few members are now unknown to at least some of
the other members and I believe this is why the forum has remained viable with
a very small number of registered members, (235).
Talkswindon has been described as a 'Parish Pump' democracy, and as such some
might look down their noses at it and correctly surmise that it will never be
'credible' in the eyes of central government before dismissing it, and forums
of its ilk completely. I'm quite proud of the 'Parish Pump' label and it might
surprise some of you to learn that the membership is equally proud of it, and
unconcerned that it may never be 'credible' in the opinion of some. It is
already credible to the members who seem of a single mind that democracy comes
from the bottom upwards, and not the top down, and as such don't need, or seek
approval from those 'above', although local councillors are now very mindful of
those that they used to imagine as being 'below' them on the ladder of
democracy.
I think we're happy with the current mix of
context/expectation/participation/responsibility although we will shamelessly
blag a good idea and try it out when appropriate.
If there are no objections, I'd like to invite a talkswindon member along to
this group, who is far more eloquent than I, and certainly better able to
explain why the forum operates well in multiple contexts with a virtually non
existent set of written rules yet manages to self moderate.