Upcoming Anonymous Poll on Anonymity

The anonymous nature of the blog site allows people to speak more freely. If posting under a pseudonym at this blog gives one less credibility, then so be it.
I’m not seeking any credit, just enjoying the ability to air out ideas among a broader forum than is available in the usual social circles. If something I write is unique, true and good, then it will resonate and spread. Otherwise it will fade into the noise.
I’m hopeful that that anonymous communication (versus the one way media model of the 20th century) will enable whole nations to shed their dictators and become free…on their own…..without help from the US or other powers. We may be witnessing this now in North Africa and other parts of the world. A dictator cannot stand up to this kind of peer pressure, even if it is anonymous. The people are truly empowered by undeniable truth rather than remaining subjects of leaders empowered by propaganda.
There are fools in any crowded venue. IMHO suffering the occasional troll is a small price to pay for the ability of all to speak freely, including those who seek no credit.

Futher, surrendering anonymity is giving up certain privacy rights.
http://thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_62.htm
Celebrities, public officials and private citizens involved in newsworthy incidences are all legally defined as public figures. Public figures actually have far fewer rights to privacy than an “ordinary person.” Public figures break down into three types:
Public figure: A person who has achieved fame or notoriety or who has voluntarily become involved in a public controversy. A public figure (or public official) suing for defamation must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice.
Example: Movie stars like Brad Pitt or Gwyneth Paltrow fall into this category.
All-purpose public figure: A person who achieves such pervasive fame or notoriety that he or she becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. For example, a person who occupies a position with great persuasive power and influence may become an all-purpose public figure, whether or not the person actively seeks attention.
Example: A company executive such as Michael Eisner or a politician like George W. Bush fall into this category.
Limited-purpose public figure: A person who, having become involved in a particular public issue, has achieved fame or notoriety only in relation to that particular issue.
Example: People involved in a controversy, such as the parents of JonBenet Ramsey, fall into this category.
These exclusions of the law give the paparazzi their rights. That is not to say that paparazzi don’t break laws in the pursuit of a shot. But as long as there is a high demand for what they do, breaking the law becomes an acceptable risk. Us Weekly’s editor-in-chief, Janice Min, says, “A celebrity is like an elected official. If you’re getting paid $20 million a movie, you have to rely on public goodwill to stay in office. You have to accept the fact that you’re a public commodity.”

Another reason for using a pseudonym:
“I have blown my credibility using my previous handle. It is time for a new public identity.”

It is delusional to think that ‘real’ identities can be distinguished from anonymous persona on the internet. ALL posters are inherently unidentifiable without some source of information external to the internet.
This was most recently exposed when the hacktivist group Anonymous took down Arron Barr the CEO of the computer security firm HBGary Federal.
Amongst the various services the HGBary Federal had been offering was software which enabled an operative to run a number of virtual persona – sock puppets – with individual posting schedules and styles all provided up with consistent and credible Facebook histories and Google backstories. These sort of systems (HBGary Fed was not alone in this field), are known to be used by lobby groups to ensure exposure for their POV in high profile comment forums.
I suspect that the less organised, more amatuer efforts by over-enthusiastic motivated individuals may have as much impact as the corporate/political efforts.
The result is that in any open web forum personal identity is a non-issue because it is inherently unverifiable. Whenever confirmation of identity is required the usual way is to request a credit card number. But even this only identifies an account with money in it, it is still not a confirmation that a particular person is real.
When there is some external connection between the people in a group, some real-world activity or place that the participant all share then there may be criteria for certainty about identity. The mutual trust of a group with a common shared interest/sport/hobby etc may enable participants that everyone else is a real person using their real name.
But in a web forum where diverse views are exchanged, especially when there are political or ideological aspects and controversy, the motivation for the generation of ‘virtual persona’ and sock-puppet tactics is far to great to make any assumption about identity.
It is inherent in the medium that it becomes a ‘Turing test’, you have NO reliable information about the identity of the person posting EXCEPT the communication on the screen.
As another poster has pointed out one of the problems with ‘real’ identities is that it leads to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. You get the poster with the attitude that their opinion has greater validity because they claim academic qualification, while other dismiss that posters contribution just because they are a member of that group whether it is scientists, liberals ot tea-baggers.
In any open web forum where the public can contribute claims of specific identity are inherently unverifiable and essentialy spurious and irrelevent. The only content available is the post a participant has made. The MAY have made it under an identity that could ultimately be traced to a real physical person, or they may be a virtual persona making supportive posts for a political party as part of a multiple persona software system being run from the basement of a ‘security consultancy’ company hired by a lobby group.
Given the chimera of verifiable identity on the web, and its disadvantages where open discussion of material issues rather than personal matters, any concern over poster anonymity is a waste of time and a futile endeavor.

Well now. Those of you, who, like me post their name most of the time should also be aware there is no proof who you say you are. I can’t remember seeing a challenge to anyone that they weren’t who they said they were. Google Jeff Mitchell and see if you can figure out who I am. If you can, your a nice lady who lives about three houses from me who knows I read this blog. If she sees this, I hope she says ‘hi’. There are several of me in my city.
One valid reason for posting anonymously is if you are well known and knowledge of the author would bias your reader’s experience of reading the comment. In science, the facts are what matter, not who said them. If you aren’t worried about getting credit for the ideas and want honest feedback, anonymous is the way to go. You eliminate the possibility that any comment will be seen through the lens of the narrative you may be thought to be promoting.
I’m in the “I don’t care” crowd. If I felt the need to be anonymous, Anthony would still have my email address to see who I really was. I like the way this blog allows commenting.

I always use my name and since AFAIK there’s never been another David Dardinger (well maybe one I’ve seen in google searches but he’s long dead and I can’t connect him to any family so it may be a typo anyway.) so nobody but me could be taking a chance. IMO, if I can’t be willing to put my name to what I think, I won’t post it.

Habit. It’s a throwback to when I used to post about the infamous Child Support Agency in the UK some years ago, when I actually did need to preserve my anonymity.
It doesn’t matter on here but I’ve got used to Mr Green Genes so I’m happy to preserve him.
For anyone who cares, my name is Nic Coome and I live in Wiltshire, England.

I agree with Mr Lynn above, when anonymous postings are not allowed, less people will contribute to the discussion which then will be boring and less illuminating. Here at WUWT a civil tone is kept and arguments are bounced and criticized even if many of the contributors are anonymous. It is very educational to follow and focus is on content not authority. Giving your true identity does not mean that what you have to say is more credible and correct (e.g. the list of AGW professors claiming things is long…), and if only people who can be open with who they are can comment and point at errors, unscientific content, and right out wrong science, then more lies can spread uncommented upon. As revealing a sceptic opinion publicly may affect job opportunities, academic position, funding, career, etc., many today anonymous scientists with lots of insightful scientific criticism will stop posting and what will dominate is (unscientific) “opinions” from people who think they know and the AGW side can take over the debate again.
Another issue is that posting comments on a blog is a completely other thing than writing a scientific article, and many professors and other researchers probably hesitate mixing the roles and prefer to use a separate identity on forums that they visit as private persons in their “out-of-office-time”. (Maybe another question for the poll – “I don’t want the risk of mixing my professional role and my private role” or something like that…)

I’ve been posting online since the 1980s. For many years I thought it was dishonest to use a pseudonym in writing opinion (not fiction), except in certain cases. For example, a person doing serious writing in his own name might not want his casual opinions to appear as part of his record in the near future. Many years later, people would have had time to sort things out, so then it would be OK if the pseudonym was exposed. For another example, a person who might be persecuted by authorities would justifiably use a pseudonym.
But I saw no *general* legitimacy in pseudonyms, so I didn’t use one, and actually, not many people did use them in those days (the 1980s).
As the years passed, the web came into being, and countless people began using them, I thought, there comes a point when you’re a sucker to use your real name. Even if the risk is only slight, countless others are refusing to take the risk, so why should I?
This wouldn’t apply if I were (say) Anthony Watts. I’d use my real name. The difference is that I’m not important, so it makes no difference. Anthony’s surface stations project would be extremely suspect if he carried it out under a pseudonym.
I have to laugh at the idea of a person who says he uses a pseudonym because otherwise he would find it difficult to make negative comments, and I’m not very confident that “laugh” is the right word, because what I feel is contempt. Doesn’t it occur to him that his negative comments might be unreasonable?

izen said @ur momisugly April 24, 2011 at 10:19 pm
“It is inherent in the medium that it becomes a ‘Turing test’, you have NO reliable information about the identity of the person posting EXCEPT the communication on the screen.”
Hmmmm… almost true. Except Anthony and I met face-to-face in Hobart recently. Oddly enough, Deadman who posts here occasionally is really called Informal. Not sure about the reliability of information in the mass media. Favourite misspelling of my surname, Sturm, is Straughan in the Launceston Examiner. And yes, I did spell my name out letter by letter… slowly 🙂