Discussion > Real names or pseudonyms?
I am Chairman Al.
I have been Chairman Al on the web since 2002. I am not really a commentator here, I am probably not even an avid or diligent reader but I am a regular reader. I am taken by the civilised debate on the Hill and it is one of the reasons that I keep coming back. I have no favourite commentators – in my eyes, the camouflaged contributors have as much to say as those who are comfortably visible.
I can understand why some might feel disadvantaged when debating with a ‘cartoon character’ as Adam Corner recently described it. On the other side of the argument, I personally feel frustrated that I cannot use my real name, talk about the people I meet and the connections I have. Without a pseudonym I would have to give up the cathartic process of expressing my own thoughts and opinions on important issues in the public realm.
There are probably many reasons why posters prefer pseudonyms. It could be driven by the thrill of being mischievous or even nasty to others. It could be the freedom to cut to the chase or expressing oneself without need for the usual social niceties. The opportunity to pretend to be someone else can be attractive and so can the possibility of being taken seriously without the need to divulge background or qualifications to others. For many, it is simply an indissoluble obligation to remain publically silent – an inability to separate the personal from the professional without utterly confusing everyone.
So when a cartoon contributor is behaving and being reasonable – accept them, embrace them as equals. Some of them have really interesting lives.
Chairman Al
Well said Chairman Al. In any politically-charged controversy such as the CAGW debate there are many valid reasons for needing to maintain anonymity, employment constraints (even sanctions) on speaking out against official policy being one of the main ones.
And there is historical precedent for this, as in the "Counterblafte" printed diatribes of a few centuries ago. (To diverge from the topic entirely, I have a (probably unprovable) hypothesis that the 'f' substituted for 's' in the middle of some printed words actually reflected contemporary pronunciation at the time. This hypothesis arose when I heard my then pre-schooler son make the same substitution several times; the penny dropped.)
I suggest that when all is done and dusted, and CAGW has been consigned to the dustbin of history, and there is no longer any reason to be anonymous, skeptic blogs could establish their own honour rolls of contributors, with people identifying themselves for posterity.
Chris M
Any view on whether it is acceptable to be a moderator for a blog under one name yet a commenter to that same blog under another name?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/arctic-sea-ice-turning-points/#comment-70117
Louise
If it's the only way you can get enough hits to make it look as if anybody reads you then I suppose needs must!
I'd let them get on with it, Louise, if I were you. The more they behave like the dumb idiots they are the more people will see them for the dumb idiots they are.
Mike Jackson
Louise,
When the Bish told you and those answering you to take it to the discussion threads, I don’t think he meant “go invade someone else’s thread”. I think he meant you to start your own ;)
However, now you’re here, let’s deal with it and then we can forget about it. From reading over at Lucia’s, I already know that you’re referring to WUWT and the moderator there DBS who posts under the name of Smokey. If you have evidence of Smokey making a statement there and then using his moderator status as DBS to prevent any kind of challenge to said statement, then you would have a point. If you have such evidence, then lay it out. If not, then drop it. It’s a non-issue. You might want to go to SkS and ask the same question. Most of the moderators there use their initials when moderating and their full names when posting. It’s not always clear that they are one and the same. I hasten to add that I am not accusing them of anything underhand here, merely showing that it’s fairly common practice to use one form of identification when moderating and another when commenting. As was pointed out to you at Lucia’s, you might also want to ask Tamino and Eli if it’s ethical to discuss and/or reference their own papers without making it abundantly clear that they are the authors of those papers. Of course, should you to do this, don‘t expect your question to survive moderation ;)
Laurie Childs
Laurie
I thought it was Tamino she was referring to. Obviously my error.
Still, you didn't have to snap her head off. "Real names or pseudonyms" seems a reasonably appropriate place for such a discussion.
Mike Jackson
Mike,
Does it come across as me snapping her head off? That certainly wasn't my intention. In which case, my apologies to you Louise. On your second point Mike, yes, you're correct. This would be as good a place to discuss it as anywhere else. I didn't register the connection.
Louise,
Having now read the thread in question at WUWT, I fail to see where the complaints at Tamino's even arise. DBS moderates one comment early in the thread (before he makes any comment at all as Smokey) then does nothing as DBS until very late in the thread when he snips one commenter for use of the D word and warns another for use of the same. All his other actions as DBS are related to rescuing peoples comments from the spam filter, including one of your own.
Laurie Childs
smokey is funny and cool.
shub
Sorry, Laurie; that was my instant reaction when I read your comment. I can be wrong twice in the same day, after all!
Mike Jackson
From Psuedonym's corner, a question: Louise, what is your view about a moderator using a name instead of initials and posting on the blog they're moderating?
You appear to be hinting darkly at some sort of malfeasance without actually saying there is, presumably because the second you do say there is malfeasance you'll be expected to explain what it is and there's none to be found. It's an alarmist thing this "hinting darkly through a glass", (while it appears sceptics are "drinking darkly through a glass" judging by the number of pub meets being proposed on these threads).
So there you have your answer, if there is no malfeasance then it's OK, whether you're an alarmist or a sceptic.
geronimo
geronimo
We have been here before in a variety of contexts.
It's fine when I do it because I'm on the side of good and truth; you are on the side if evil and lies and therefore you must committing some malfeasance or other. Like Lear, "I know not what ..." but I'm sure you must be.
Two KGB officers met in a street in Moscow, one carrying a suitcase. Asked where he was going he replied "Leningrad". "Hmmm," thought the first, "if he says that it probably means he is staying in Moscow and the suitcase is a blind. But then that it probably what he wants me to think which almost certainly means he is going to Leningrad. Devious bastard!"
I think at bottom it's called human nature!!
Mike Jackson
Mike, you are, of course correct, but for the life of me I cannot think of anything sinister in a mod posting on the thread he/she is moderating provided there is no malfeasance. We can argue whether Louise's view of what constitutes malfeasance is acceptable to us, but we don't know what it is, all we have is the question, archly posed.
geronimo
Mike: PS. Enjoyed the referenc to the Bard, but when it comes to universal truths I believe he's light years behind Richmal Crompton which is why I have always thought of the alarmists as Hubert Laneites.
geronimo
You may well be right; I hadn't thought of it like that. I must see if any of my old William books are still in the attic!
Mike Jackson
geronimo: thanks for Pseudonym's Corner, I love the allusion to Private Eye's Pseud's Corner. That I will definitely reuse somehow, somewhere. And Louise is fine to air her concern here, in my book. I've always hoped that this thread will have a longer life than some others, because I think the subject deserves that. For what it's worth I think it's unwise for a moderator to use one pseud for that role and another one to make other comments, especially if they are trenchant ones. I think Louise has a point on that, if those are the facts of the matter. But there are so many very subtle points in this area. Onwards and upwards.
Richard Drake
Richard,
As poster Smokey, he is most definitely of the trenchant sort. However, when moderating in his DBS persona (his real life initials), he seems to me to be as helpful and light of touch as any of the other mods at WUWT. I think as long as he keeps the two roles separate, then there shouldn’t be a problem. There isn’t any evidence of any unfair play in the thread that Louise points to, however, I don’t know if there have been instances of it on previous threads.
Also, you will note that I now use my own name. Not that I was ever really trying to hide it, at least not on blogs discussing climate. But it is, nonetheless, a result of reading this thread. I have to say, I actually find it quite liberating. I seem to be posting comments more now. I have no idea how that works??? Perhaps I should ask Lewandowsky ;)
Laurie Childs
For several years I was reporting for a local newspaper while I was at the same time chairman of a local organisation, a situation which I would say is analogous to what we are discussing here.
It's a balancing act and at times not an easy one but as long as you remember that your job as a reporter is to report the news and the facts (or as a moderator to maintain the policy and standards of the blog) and that your opinions are your own and not to be intruded into the "day job" then you can carry it off.
Whether it is advisable to do that in an area as contentious as climate science and in a medium as young as the blogosphere is another matter. Personally, if Andrew were to decide that he needed WUWT-style moderators and offered me the job I would probably refuse but if I accepted I would stop making contributions.
The debate is further confused by the fact that comments here are open so everyone has a chance to see who is saying what before Andrew decides to snip or remove. With a pre-moderated blog like WUWT there is always the suspicion that a particular moderator who is also an active contributor may have excised your comment for non-legitimate reasons.
Mike Jackson
As long as all posters are on message and within the blog rules then what matters is the message and not the messenger. The instant someone starts to be offensive or personal then they should not be allowed to continue to write under a pseudonym.
The Bish has our names and emails etc and perhaps should use that info when a member transgresses?
Dung
@dung
Ummm
If one were posting under an assumed name it would be easy enough to create an e-mail address for that identity, so your point is a bit weak.
Personally I have no problem with anybody posting under whatever name they like. But I confess that - in the absence of any other info - I am always a bit more wary of those who appear to have no second name 'Joshua', 'Robert', 'Louise', 'Martha' etc.
But having had the great joy of meeting you in person, Mr Heep, I fully understand the reasons why you choose the mononymic form.
Latimer Alder
Bein 'ever so 'umble, Master Alder I am gratified that you has given me the benefit of your wisdom sir ^.^
Dung
I wonder where Bishop Hill stands on the question of whether people should use their real names.
Scottie
On a very simplistic point. If I was posting to a random blog from work I wouldn't really want my name attached to that fact.
Rob Burton
I would like to remind Richard Drake that there is a long established thread here where all have had a chance to discuss the pros and cons of using a pseudonym rather than a real name when posting on this or any other blog. Richard has contributed to this discussion many times and at great length.
However in recent week Richard has inserted his views on anonymity into more and more current threads.
It is not possible for me to know what is happening in Richard's mind but nevertheless I would like to question the motivation for diverting discussion on current threads rather than making new posts here.
Many BH regulars have engaged in this thread and politely given their reasons for using a made up name rather than a real name, the conclusion I draw from all the posts is that while people approve of the use of real names, they also approve of the use of made up names. The general concensus (hehe) is that what matters is the ideas and the opinions and not the real name of the person giving those thoughts and opinions.
It seems to me that Richard is incapable of taking on board the idea that most people like BH just then way it is. Richard also seems not to factor in the thought that BH is not "the blogosphere", BH is a website created and paid for by Andrew Montford and also supported by subscribers plus doners ALL of whom seem happy with the way it works.
I would like to ask Richard to do 2 things:
1. Stop disrupting new threads with his ideas on anonymity, post here instead.
2. Remember that it is not his blog.
Colin Brooks
Dung
I'll talk about it when your expression of my views is at least 25% accurate.
Richard Drake
For the record
I like to use the nickname Dung. I have used it in many online games and at one time had a guild with 500 devoted followers. I am happy to provide anyone who needs it with my real name but I am a nobody not a somebody.