Post in Anonymity, Accountability and Identity

2007 Jun 16 17:47 UTC

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.