Mary, I agree. I've felt uncomfortable about anonymous comments on my blog throughout. One post of mine drew three quite critical comments; all were anonymous. What's ironic is that they were well-reasoned and had good points to make. The anonymity served to deflate the comments' value--they certainly would have proved stronger to me had real names been attached.

And if you're not willing to stand behind your own words, why should readers pay attention to them?

I think this is especially true if you've got something defamatory to say. If you want to flame someone or hurt with your words, you should identify yourself.

Knowing this, there are situations where naming yourself can be risky and dangerous; for example, in highly politically-charged or whistle-blowing situations. In those cases, I would be willing to tolerate anonymity.

Regards,

John

John, thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. I agree with the whistle-blowing exception, but I'm not sure about the politically-charged one. Could you elaborate on that a little bit?

Mary,

I wasn't very articulate earlier. I was thinking of an example where someone from a country that doesn't tolerate dissent well (say, China, Myanmar, Iran?) says something provocative. It would take a very courageous individual to put one's name to statements that criticize intolerant governments, and in many cases I can see it being better for mankind for these types of statements to be made without attribution than not made at all.

Regards, John

John, I thought you were very articulate. I just wasn't certain if you meant politically-charged in terms of a political party, office politics or an example like the one you just gave. I agree with you that it would take a particularly brave individual to forego anonymity in that circumstance. The problem is that things are unlikely to change without personal sacrifice and responsibility -- the anonymous comments mean much less than the photograph of a person putting a flower in the barrel of a gun or holding one in front of a tank. Neither of those people had an avatar to do the job for them. However, you're right, the anonymous comments can in some cases have an impact.

That being said, I'm thinking about the long-term organizational and societal impacts of net-based environments that allow people anonymous access to a primary communication channel for a group or community.

I have always had a problem with anonymous "suggestion boxes" and anonymous input to online organizational discussion areas. In my mind, it encourages a lack of accountability in the culture. If, in complex contexts, we want widespread input to decisionmaking and if we want people at all levels to be able to take the reins at different points in time, then we need a culture of maturity and responsibility. To me, that means accountability in communication.

Mary,
I am of the opinion that only when there are clear and obvious reasons for anonymity should it even be permitted. I know some blogs I read / participate in will not allow anonymous postings. I agree. It's the rare subject that we might touch on where signing your post would be unreasonable. And I think the two of them have been identified, whistle-blowing, and when one fears retribution.

My definition is maybe a little more broad than the political retribution brought up. Being brave and committed to change is great for people such as us, where we have the ability to pretty much recover from any consequence of our action. I do not believe this is the case for everyone in every social context. Now, if we are talking about most of the kinds of blogs I hang out on, I can't imagine a reason for anonymity.

As for the value of such comments - Anonymous critique is most devalued when someone seeks to speak from personal experience or asks the reader to accept opinion based on the writers experience. A solid argument that stands on it's own is perfectly compelling. But if there is any wiggle room for me to take into account the writer, seeing 'anonymous' as a tag line pretty much blows it for me!
Wayne

Wayne, thanks so much for your input.

I know what you mean about us being able to recover from the consequences of our actions. On the other hand, people in desperate circumstances will also act when they have nothing more to lose. As we're having these discussions, Pakistan is very much on my mind. Anonymous commentary on why constitutions shouldn't be suspended probably won't have very much impact.

I like your distinction about solid arguments versus opinions. The big problem with anonymity in social media, however, is that anonymity is not very social. If someone puts in a solid argument, it might be interesting but ultimately, I believe it lessens the quality of the interaction.

Mary,
I remember a professor I had during the early eighties. I was discussing what was going on at the time in Central America and the Middle East and he said "Democracy means nothing to a man who can't feed his family". One of those epiphanies of a sort! I am not convinced right now that any postings regarding Pakistan's constitutional status will have all that much impact, signed or otherwise.

I sometimes wonder if our ability to post our frustrations publicly over the web makes it easier to avoid marching in the streets here in my hometown. I wonder if it allows us to say "I've done my part" rather than stand in the square and put flowers in the barrels of tanks.
Wayne

Good point, Wayne. I must say that I think some considerable measure of the breakdown of civility in our Western culture is attributable to the distance we are able to achieve when we communicate virtually -- particularly through email. So your point about virtual activism is well taken.

Another question this leads me to is "how does the concept of anonymity relate to complexity?" Dave has set forth interesting ideas about identity in his writings. As human beings, we have multiple identities that influence our actions in a system. When and how does our individual identity matter? How does identity relate to responsibility and how do we think about collective vs. individual responsibility in terms of complex contexts?

Hi Mary, As I read this thread and your last post in particular, it seems to me that anonymity may be stimulating an attractor in the complex space. In this sense stimulating behaviour that may not have occurred if anonymity was not an option. In the context of identity my sense is that a person’s name is only a minor aspect of the multiple identities they (or I should say we) manage in a dynamic and fluid way in every moment. Also in the virtual space it is relatively easy to use aliases and other means to maintain anonymity so the disclosure of name becomes not as important. In virtual worlds such as Second-life, how do fabricated identities form in such a space and what are their influences both in the virtual space as well as the real space occupied by the people behind the avatars? If it is similar to workshop environments in complex facilitation exercises using fiction then the virtual will be a reflection of the real.

When you asked how identity relates to responsibility I found myself asking if maintaining anonymity is shirking responsibility. I think if one abuses anonymity by behaving or interacting in a way that they would not if one was exposed then this might well be a reflection of what is behind a façade that that is upheld as one's exposed identity. I.e. in anonymity the real surfaces whether we like it or not. But it brings about an interesting thought as we relate this to complexity – perhaps disclosure of identity acts as a constraint or boundary which is in contrast to anonymity which, as stated earlier, might contribute to the stimulation of an attractor.

Hi Michael, thanks for joining in. I agree with you that identity is easily manipulated online which is why this question of anonymity is so crucial. I also recognize that a name is one of the easiest things to change. However, it does present a starting point for tracking identity. If someone gives me a name, I can find out if they exist if I want to pursue it. Also, a name gives me a means of tracking their comments and contributions to a community and I can see if they are consistent, honest, and trustworthy.

In my mind, the anonymity issue is closely related to trust. If you are not willing to share an identity I can track, then how can I trust you? Why should I want to interact with you?

Thank you very much indeed for this post because it is leading me to my next blog entry which will be about trust.

Another set of opinions from a different crowd on this very same subject here:

http://blog.ragan.com/archives/shadesofgray/2007/11/am_i_being_hysterical_or_is_sh.html

Corporate communication people talking about freedom of expression as limited by corporate world.

I feel that this more than just an issue of trust, courage to stand behind's one opinions, safety etc. Looking at the opposite, i.e. the person who flames anonymously or mischievously amends a wikipedia entry, our values systems are important too.

What motivates someone to act maliciously? As several of the above posts mention, generally the online communities that we frequent are that, communities. And communities have social mores or norms, or some shared value system. Unfortunately the digital age has made it much more easy for people to hide, so their values system becomes even more important. I find it interesting (and I tell my kids this) that when we were at school we were taught how to write different styles of letters to different audiences (e.g. the business letter, the letter to a grandparent, to a pen pal and so on) yet nobody I know is ever taught how to construct email messages. And the issue of online ethics is never broached in our schools.

Like Mary - I do not believe in the anonymous comment - but as a part-time journalist and critic, I do understand that sometimes it is useful to have that "off the record" tip off by an insider. So I guess we have to live with it, as part of our free and open society...