I would like to disagree with Mr. Lewis below on the subject of anonymity. I have posted in the past several times anonymously and tried to do so respectfully, courteously and accurately.

The great thing about a chatboard is we can enter the fray and offer an opinion, uninhibited by any public speaking reservations or fear that we will look foolish.

Finally don't forget the proliferation of spyware which seeks out email addresses to spam.

I think our readers are smart enough to understand the anonymous opinions are meant to provoke debate or answer some question or charge without compromising sources.

I also think that when there is an assertion of fact offered by an anonymous poster, both the poster and the audience understand the potential of material error and weight the value accordingly.

Its nice to offer a name, but I can't see how its imperitive. If a post is blatantly misleading or profane it should be removed whether or not its signed.

> I would like to disagree with Mr. Lewis
> below on the subject of anonymity. I have
> posted in the past several times anonymously
> and tried to do so respectfully, courteously
> and accurately.

> The great thing about a chatboard is we can
> enter the fray and offer an opinion,
> uninhibited by any public speaking
> reservations or fear that we will look
> foolish.

> Finally don't forget the proliferation of
> spyware which seeks out email addresses to
> spam.

> I think our readers are smart enough to
> understand the anonymous opinions are meant
> to provoke debate or answer some question or
> charge without compromising sources.

> I also think that when there is an assertion
> of fact offered by an anonymous poster, both
> the poster and the audience understand the
> potential of material error and weight the
> value accordingly.

> Its nice to offer a name, but I can't see
> how its imperitive. If a post is blatantly
> misleading or profane it should be removed
> whether or not its signed.

Sorry, I disagree. Either stand behind your words, or don't utter them in public. If you want to be an anonymous source, get a job with the government or one of the tabloid newspapers.


Kevinmccabe@avenew.com

If only it were that simple...
Should a person who is reporting inside information on a company be forced to use thier real name to get things out in the public, especially if their bosses were to read this forum?

Would you stand by your words then at the risk of losing something? Its easier to stand high upon your towers and shun those who prefer to remain anonymous, but if you had a reason to be would you be so quick to agree with your previous statements?

-=Andrew=-

RumorWeb
abrandon@foothill.net

Does the phrase, "Stand up and be counted," mean anything? Far greater thought and hesitancy (which is a good thing) are employed when the speaker/poster is publicly accountable for their words. I am galled by people who privately agree only to get to a meeting and have them remain quiet as a mouse when I look for some support.

Put up or ...


wyld@sbcglobal.net

Anonymity is a double edged sword. I know personally that there are people that use these discussion forums who could never disceminate the information they do if they were to use their real names. On the flip-side of the coin, I have seen my share of anonymity abused by cowards who are afraid to stand behind personal opinions.

On the chaski Railfan wwwboard (which admittedly and purposefully has somewhat looser regulations than the Interchange) its always a case by case basis for me. I know some of the "anonymous" users for who they really are and for that reason allow them to use pen names (also knowing that they could not participate under their real names for various reasons.) If were to make a hard and fast rule, it would be that a pen name could be used to disceminate factual and verifiable information, but never to state personal opinions, and especially not to attack or debase another user or someone in the railfan/preservation society at large.

mrwowak@yahoo.com

> Sorry, I disagree. Either stand behind your
> words, or don't utter them in public. If you
> want to be an anonymous source, get a job
> with the government or one of the tabloid
> newspapers.

Actually-I offer my services free to the government-hence my pseudonym.

I don't wish to be a "source", in as much as that evokes images of "deep throat" of Watergate fame. That's not my desire.

Let me explain my reasoning. In the past, I've used this pseudonym to indicate my close proximity and bias to Steamtown. Last year at this time, you may remember, there was a barrage of anti-Steamtown postings. Many were signed, but inaccurate.

We have many instances of respecting privacy in expressing opinions of public consequence-the secret ballot being one example. I think that reflects the vulnerability of the individual to society at large. (or rabid railfans?)

Obviously, the moderators have the last word. However, if you've ever posted your real name to something and received hate spam-well its not pleasant.

If this were a world full of malice-free rational free agents, I'd stand with you. Unfortunately, its not. I think interchange would be a lot less vibrant if people measured their speech by the potential for social or economic revenge.

I've made my best case. I guess for those who've experienced it, no explanation is necessary-for those who haven't-none is possible.

As one of the moderators of the Interchange I have deleted the post by "Ross Rowland." The poster was not Ross, but rather someone who wished to make the point that even signed emails may not be what they appear.

The point is a good one we should all take to heart. However, under the Interchange Terms of Service our tolerance does not extend to allowing posts under known false identities, even for educational purposes.

As to the broader point of this discussion, every year or so the subject of anonymity seems to come up. We had had conversations with the Interchange community each time, and have offered and debated the merits of switching to a "register to post" format. Each time the sense of the community has weighed clearly against it.

So we have the present compromise. We request that people use their real names. We tolerate posts under pseudonyms and screen names, so long as those posts abide by all the other terms of service. We can and do delete posts which we feel violate the terms of service, though we are more likely to give a borderline post the benefit of the doubt if it is signed with a real name rather than a screen name.

Some of the most difficult cases involve critisicm, often harsh, either of vendors or institutions. Our rule of thumb is that if the information offered is material, and the post is not accompanied by invective or personal attack, the post stands. Often it is a judgement call, and we know we have no hope of pleasing all readers.

On the whole, the community seems to work well. Hume, Brian, Bob and I all have day jobs, and cannot monitor things constantly. We have to depend on the community itself to floow the Golden Rule, and keep things civil.


Wash Post article
eledbetter@rypn.org

> I think that as one develops a track record for their own postings, for accuracy, reasoned debate etc, that there is a general acceptance of the anonymity. Myself, my reasons are two-fold. First, my company is called Finderskeepers, and we are a registered Ontario based business (so that's not really anon. is it) Secondly I work for a major north american railway whose employees hate railfans, model railroaders, "buffs", historians and preservationists like the plague, and I don't need to be attaching my name to postings to fuel this. I don't post things as gospel unless I have witnessed them firsthand, done them myself, or directly talked to those involved. If I am unsure of the facts I post it as a question, not as a statement. And yes, my email does work.

b.hume@rogers.com

Well said, IMO It's the contents of the can that's important, not the name on the label!