Post in Writing governance statements for e-participation projects

2007 Jun 14 08:59 UTC

Geoff Reid wrote:

> At 'TS' we're a bit bemused by sites that deliberately limit
> input to discussion and seeks, or hints that they might
> 'validate' identity. We can't see the point. A valid point is
> a valid point regardless of whether it's made by Geoff Reid
> or Jumping Jack Flash.

For private individuals, I agree. But there is some point in validating
the identity of someone who claims to hold a significant position -
local councillor or senior police officer, for instance. The
expectations of them in the forum would be partly about the office they
hold, not them as individuals - and it would be unfair if bad online
behaviour by someone pretending to be them was held against the real
person.

Although maybe that last thought is shading towards the more paranoid
argument for validating everyone's identity, which is that the ultimate
sanction for bad online behaviour is to ban them from participating, and
that's meaningless if they can immediately resubscribe with a different
identity. I don't know of any instance where this has been demonstrated
in practice.

Regards, Peter.