Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56

Thread: What do you think about the policy requiring user identification?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    117

    Default Let Me Know

    What you hear.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    84

    Default response

    FYI, Mr. Wyner responded quickly yesterday explaining that he had to take down a couple of the comment sections because he was not able to police it with the time it required. He says he runs all letters with some exception to a letter which he believes may be rumor.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Interesting article on salon.com about anonymity.
    http://www.salon.com/life/feature/st...ous_commenting

    One high point: the serious inclusion of the "Heywood" joke.

    For what it's worth, I'm still in favor of requiring identification, but might be persuaded to experiment with "anonymous identities" as long as the real identity was known to the Moderator (whom I hope we can all agree has done a great job of being fair and consistent over the life of this forum).

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default Some editors have had enough...

    This article in the Boston Globe (3 Maine newspapers put stop to online commenting) suggests that the level of discourse in anonymous forums is too getting to be more than some editors want to handle:
    http://www.boston.com/business/ticke...e_newspap.html

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wayland
    Posts
    6

    Post judi marks I think we have to be accountable for what we say. I have no problem with

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    A Discussion Forum user recently emailed me noting that the Discussion Forum seems to be awfully quiet, while there's lots of activity at the Town Crier boards.

    A legitimate question is whether our policy of requiring users to be named is the best policy for this Discussion Forum, and I would like your feedback on it.

    When the Discussion Forum first started, our policy was to require users to either use their real name or identify themselves to the board moderators. If they wanted to remain anonymous, they were not allowed to post anything of a controversial nature (whereas postings like, "Does anybody know when hydrant flushing will occur?" would be perfectly fine.")

    Somewhere along the way, we amended that policy to simply require all users to use their real name as their user name. Our concern was that we wanted to avoid the extreme negativity that we have seen on the Town Crier boards. We encourage active debate and disagreement, but we can "disagree without being disagreeable".

    How do we best encourage useful and energetic debate without encouraging the bad behavior that drives people away from these boards in the first place? What's the right balance? Your thoughts are welcome. Even, especially!, if you disagree with me.
    If I have something to say I will be accountable for anything I put in writing. I have no problem and actually encourage the current system.
    judijudi

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default Excellent Op-Ed in the New York Times on anonymity

    I think collectively we've made all these arguments before, but this is a very good piece that pulls it all together:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Gizmodo's "audition system" is an idea I hadn't seen before--interesting. Couple that with a way for the publisher (but not readers) to know a person's identity and there might be a semi-anonymous middle ground. For this Discussion Forum given its local focus, however, I still prefer posting under real names in the spirit of Town Meeting's "Mr. Moderator, Jeff Dieffenbach, Pleasant Street" approach.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    A few minor new points, most notably the opinion to oppose making a web site responsible for content posted by the site's users.
    http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_...ity/index.html

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    117

    Default

    We should all congratulate Jeff on the accomplishment of 1,000 posts. He is the most prolific poster here and the first to hit this milestone! Congrats!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    It wouldn't surprise me if a group was already forming to take up a collection for a gold watch with which to escort me into retirement.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Interesting, tangentially related vision of the future of journalism by the excellent Dan Gillmor.
    http://www.salon.com/news/media_crit...tive_excerpt_3

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Farhad Manjoo of slate.com adds his two cents to the topic of identified versus anonymous comments. In addition to sharing some interesting observations about how identified comments improve the quality of the discussion, he talks about how Facebooks logins can be used by third party sites to facilitate their comment sections.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manjoo
    Facebook has just revamped its third-party commenting "plug-in," making it easier for sites to outsource their commenting system to Facebook.
    Quote Originally Posted by Manjoo
    Dozens of sites—including, most prominently, the blog TechCrunch—recently switched over to the Facebook system. Their results are encouraging: At TechCrunch, the movement to require real names has significantly reduced the number of trolls who tar the site with stupid comments. ... What's my beef with anonymity? For one thing, several social science studies have shown that when people know their identities are secret (whether offline or online), they behave much worse than they otherwise would have. Formally, this has been called the "online disinhibition effect," but in 2004, the Web comic Penny Arcade coined a much better name: The Greater Internet F---wad Theory (Jeff comments: "GIFT").
    Last edited by Kim Reichelt; 03-10-2011 at 03:09 PM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Anyone see the movie Network? Remember the scene where people start screaming out the windows that they're not going to take it anymore?

    The last week or so has been an interesting one on the TC site. As has been discussed previously, the lack of required ID on those boards allows for users to lob a bunch of trash and no feel the ramifications for doing so. While there are several posters on both sides of issues that fit this description, one particular poster has caught my attention. So, I've taken to consistently following up his/her offensive posts by calling out the individual as an "anonymous coward" and suggesting that without providing his/her name, the posts have no value (No ID= No VALUE!).

    I don't see the issue as a political one, but more of a quest for people to do what's right. If you're going to post on sites, the 1st amendment allows you to write you want. However, should we support the right of our fellow citizens to do so without owning up to their comments? Has my personal quest gone too far? I'm interested in how it should be handled if not by directly confronting it as I have chosen to do here. I think ignoring it is the same as tacit agreement with it, although I know at least one individual has suggested that not responding is the best course of action.

    Just curious.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Jeff, I know you have been unhappy with the level of discourse on the Town Crier site, and you know I agree with you. But the bad behavior is, as you say, on both sides. To just choose one person to take on seems a bit disingenuous.

    Your credibility on this issue would be enhanced if you took on not just this one poster who consistently disagrees with you, but also those who agree with you. It's easy to say, "I disagree with you, therefore your opinion doesn't matter." It's a lot harder to say, "Even though I agree with you, I am still calling you out." Otherwise, this strikes me as your way of just ignoring the people you don't agree with.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    Jeff, I know you have been unhappy with the level of discourse on the Town Crier site, and you know I agree with you. But the bad behavior is, as you say, on both sides. To just choose one person to take on seems a bit disingenuous.

    Your credibility on this issue would be enhanced if you took on not just this one poster who consistently disagrees with you, but also those who agree with you. It's easy to say, "I disagree with you, therefore your opinion doesn't matter." It's a lot harder to say, "Even though I agree with you, I am still calling you out." Otherwise, this strikes me as your way of just ignoring the people you don't agree with.
    I think I've done that several times, Kim. I have said in several posts that I do not support posting without ID in general. I think the reason I've chosen to keep responding to this one person is not because I disagree with him/her, but because that person keeps calling me out personally. It doesn't seem right to allow it to keep happening. Of course you're 100% correct that any of the posters that throw out unsupported accusations, trashy comments, or attacks are wrong. I'd go so far as to say any of the posters that put anything on those boards without ID'ing themselves is minimizing the value of their thoughts by not owning up to them.

    Let's look at another situation. I think it is pretty clear that Jeff D. and I do not see eye-to-eye on many issues, but he has (to my knowledge) always used his name. I can respect the difference in opinion in these situations because he owns his comments.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •