All posts in the topic Anonymity, Accountability and Identity (Short link)

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.