1 one sided

This is a very important and broad topic but the author has chosen to narrow it to his own subjective position which is one sided if not even politically biased. The anonymity on the internet issue is not just one of managing online communities it is one of freedom of speech and information but here we have someone who only proposes control and hierarchy over the free flow of information and openness of a community and in larger context of society as a whole.

Why is Mr. Grohol afraid of “antisocial behaviour” and why does he prefer an elitist “American Express” type of club instead of an egalitarian visionary one like Wikipedia? Maybe because he never experienced being cast out? Maybe because he always was a member of the club, was renown enough and had an American Express Gold membership? I am not convinced that someone writing for the Journal of Medical Internet Research should be treated as an expert in democracy and free expression. Free speech is not a medical problem. At least Mr. Grohol admits himself that hierarchy and control can not stop “antisocial behaviour” in that he states “Membership systems are no panacea, and they won’t stop a person who is committed to disrupting your site”.

So why claim that it is better to curb communication in a community? If Mr. Grohol really is a netizen since 1992, I am since 1997, I wonder why he is not a visionary like people who joined the net back then or rather built the net. Wha does he want to set uo limits and barriers?

While it is true that members do not want to loose their authority it is clear that curbing anonymous expression will narrow the scope of the available expression.

I prefer some errors and a broader scope to a medically approved American Express type of free speech.

posted at 03:46 am on April 04, 2006 by Tadeusz Szewczyk

2 Untitled

In reply to the first post, I don’t think Dr. Grohol is saying everyone online should be onymous. But simply, “you can grow a stronger community by making individual members identify their contributions, and here are some ideas how…” Rest assured, Dr. Grohol probably is not a member of the Inner Party .

Funnily enough, I’m about to post with my real name—not something I had intended to do. One assumes when registering to post, that they are choosing a username for use as a pseudonym (I recently read an excellent article on this topic). As this is clearly not the case, I had better spell-check my post.

posted at 05:10 am on April 04, 2006 by Chris Botman

4 The net as social control

An online community can greatly benefit from “official” membership due to the same sense of belonging Tadeusz mentions as lacking all too often in off line interactions. The other side of the coin is the Big Brother effect, but the net lends itself to that with or without the need for registration. Anyone interested should check out The New Panopticon .

But I don’t get the impression that this article is calling for that sort of thing. Let’s be honest. As cool as Wikipedia is, wouldn’t it be even more so if contributors could be identified, and rated based on the momentum built up (or failed to build up) over the history of their contributions? The possability of anonymity could be preserved while offering such a system to those who wish to use it. Then of course there’s a whole new can of worms of social engineering that could take place as people start artificially inflating the ratings of those contributors who support their current world view and artificially smearing the ratings of those who post things contrary to their world view. So it’s far from perfect, but I think it could be an improvement if properly implemented.

posted at 08:43 am on April 04, 2006 by Derek Pennycuff

5 Untitled

I always liked it when everyone was anonymous and what was said – not how or by who – was the important. I guess it’s best summed up in the old Arabian proverb, “Examine what is said, not him who speaks.”

But I never took offense from anything but justified criticism – that is, the one I agreed with – always thought the rest just ridiculed the originator. Sure, sometimes you wonder why people are against you, but why care – they’re always going to just be there.

Dissatisfaction with oneself comes from inside – other people can just make it apparent – justified, or not?

posted at 10:49 am on April 04, 2006 by Daniel jaspoid

6 Sxip Idenity

There is a a better way

http://sxip.com

http://sxore.com/

posted at 10:55 am on April 04, 2006 by Art Guy

7 Untitled

Please, if you are going to use large words like “pseudonymity”—just for our sake—use your spell-checker.

–Anonymous

posted at 11:08 am on April 04, 2006 by Patrick Bruno

8 I always liked shrinks.

Nice code!

posted at 02:38 pm on April 04, 2006 by Daniel jaspoid

9 I love this part!

“Anonymity allows people to hide behind their computers while saying whatever they want with little ramification.”

Just wondering, isn’t it a good thing when people say what they want? Isn’t it the stupid things they want that make it bad? ‘Cause it’s always been quite an enigma to me that people aren’t welcome to say what they think when they aren’t threatened to be bashed or rejected by the establishment. Of course, the poor establishment I’m talking to will disagree – but still – I don’t get it. What do you fear? That people will feel hurt? Well, look at the world you defend – it’s working!

posted at 02:51 pm on April 04, 2006 by Daniel jaspoid

10 ..in hell, brother.

Now I know this community wasn’t designed for me, so I’m not coming back to read your equally stupid replies. Just thought I’d pop in and disrupt the order – or what’s it called? See you..

posted at 02:57 pm on April 04, 2006 by Daniel jaspoid