| 5:59 pm on Jun 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think anonymity would destroy credibility. When we ran surveys at the university allowing anonymity skewed the results. Simply asking for a name and number improved the results even though the name and number supplied could have been complete fiction. There's no incentive to maintain accountability with anonymous posting. Then there's the dictum from Journalism 101: If the editor knows the name of your anonymous source, they're not anonymous, they're [name withheld by request].
Nominus umbra ;)
| 6:25 pm on Jun 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
DG, I think what volatilegx is getting at about preserving anonymity is the privacy factor from the standpoint of public exposure, not so much in the journalistic sense.
I think it could take a private membership forum that's not publicly accessible to accomplish a real feeling of privacy. There are also certain intangible factors in different settings, making some environments seem more "protected" than others.
| 6:40 pm on Jun 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I would think that anonymity would provide a forum for abuse to which the moderators could be forced to response outside of current guidelines.
We all have a certain amount of anonymity now, that is, don't display private information on your sticky.
The coined "On the Internet, no one knows your a dog" still applies.
I think it would hurt the forum "group" more than help.
Privacy is the greater issue, and and stickymail works great.
| 7:11 pm on Jun 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I realized he was talking about the freedom of expression that comes bundled with anonymity. Private forum is an oxy-moron. ;) My concern was with this:
>>but not be identified along with what you say
Information provided by people that don't wish to be identified with the information is suspect. In this particular instance regarding salaries I don't think the issue is one of identification, but one of societal protocol. Many people are taught that the public discussion of personal income is frowned upon.
Even in a "private" forum I doubt that a discussion of personal salaries would go far. In a discussion in which particulars are asked for, a discussion of generalities misses the point.
| 9:26 am on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I've thought about something similar.
Back in "the old days", we used to have 1 section called a "wall", where people could post anon. It was a running convo almost like a chat room. Real ips and usernames would be tracked behind the scenes of course to prevent abuse. It also wouldn't have a "forum" or show anywhere. Just a link to an open running "post" for members. Say the last 50 messages left would be displayed in reverse order.
| 9:58 am on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Many people are taught that the public discussion of personal income is frowned upon. |
Coming from a military background, the top dog to lowest pup knew the pay scale of all others, although I do understand that "many people are taught that the public discussion of personal income is frowned upon".
However, what I can't fathom is why anonymity would change the cultural background from which you came from. If you agree with what you were taught, this shouldn't be discussed with or without anonymity.
Am I saying that a "wall" forum shouldn't be considered, no.
Just that any comment of controversy would fall in here and the moderators must now read between the lines.
IMO open forum isn't chat nor should it be.
| 5:08 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Bett's wall could work very well providing the moderator resources can police it to the higher level that would no doubt be necessary by it's very nature.
How do the long suffering unpaid mods feel??
| 5:11 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
My thoughts - that is why there is "StickyMail". Why make the moderators work any harder then they already do :)