By any other name

Came across an interesting post on Design Observer today:

In Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare wrote a “rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” suggesting the meaning of something is more important than what it is called. By extension, the content of a blog post or comment is more significant than the signature of the poster (or postee), which provides something of a rationale for the surfeit of pseudonymous and anonymous postings on most blogs. Alas, my dear Montague, I beg to differ.

A rose is a rose, and a real name at the end of a blog post is an indication that the person who authored the statement is taking responsibility, indeed ownership of the words — it is a simple act of honesty. For too long bloggers have been given license that is not tolerated in letters-to-the-editor columns of newspapers and magazines (except in extraordinary circumstances). If one is willing to expound, exclaim, or critique it should be done under a real name and with links to a valid email or website address. If transparency on the web is the new black, then there should be no secrets.

What think ye?

It’s an interesting topic. I do think content is king, but so is context.
Reading Fake Steve Jobs is always fun, but when he takes a particular dig at the media, it’s good to know that Fake Steve is really an editor at Forbes. It’s to be assumed that prior to his real identity being public knowledge, he never had to censor himself. Now that his name is out there for everyone, I think he probably loses some of the comfort anonymity affords.
Transparency is all fine and good, but when fear of repercussion prevents you from saying what you really think, it’s good to be safe behind another name.

I agree that there’s no single answer. For example, the very good blog Rule of Lords is written by someone who uses an assumed name, because of the nature of his writings about humans rights issues and politics in Southeast Asia. Were he to reveal his identity, the vindictive and corrupt governments of Burma and Thailand might go after him. In this situation, I think the internet and blogging and the possibility of anonymity it affords is great. And certainly he would either not be able to continue the blog, or at least not be able to write with freedom from fear of repercussions. His info page at upiasiaonline.com simply says:

“Awzar Thi is the pen name of a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission with over 15 years of experience as an advocate of human rights and the rule of law in Thailand and Burma. To protect ongoing work in these countries, he prefers not to reveal his identity.”

I say more power to him.

Ben, I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you. Think of the Federalist Papers, a series of 85 articles published in two news papers over a period of eleven months starting in October 1787. The authors used the pseudonym “Publius” as they explained the philosophy and motivation behind the proposed government outlined in the U.S. Constitution while advocating its ratification. Today the anonymously published articles are considered a primary source for the legal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Consider what was gained by the authors remaining anonymous. Instead of using popularity, notoriety or slander to gain the voice of the people, they used logic to persuade. Perhaps we would do well to have anonymous debates to determine who is nominated to run for president or to determine policy.

It’s a case of hiding a conflict of interest. Madison wrote the Constitution, and then wrote anonymous columns supporting it after “attack ads” from “Cato” and “Brutus” were printed. If the President proposed a major policy plan, then had an underground campaign of letters to the editor, blog entries, comments on major sites and calls to public radio, people would get upset. I say present your case as it is, and people will use the context of the authorship to understand your position better.

Sorry Ben, I mean I disagree with the post you quoted.

M₁: I agree. Most of what people say probably won’t have serious repercussions, but on the occasions when it can turn explosive (or deadly), anonymity is a nice shield to hide behind. Of course, as you mentioned, it’s hard to maintain, and once it’s lost, it’s lost.

rikker: And I agree with you, too. :) It seems that perhaps as a general rule, transparency is good, except in cases where it would subvert the purpose of the writer (as M mentions with FSJ) or where it would endanger them.

Janet: I figured that was what you meant — the only way you could possibly disagree with what I said was if you thought the post I quoted wasn’t interesting. :P Anyway, do you think anonymous writings (whether posts or comments or whatever) carry enough weight that they could do the same thing nowadays? Or is there a stigma attached?

M₂: Agreed.

Man, I want to re-read the Federalist Papers. It’s been too long… (To be specific, I haven’t read them since my AP Government class seven years ago.)

M,

“If the President proposed a major policy plan, then had an underground campaign of letters to the editor, blog entries, comments on major sites and calls to public radio, people would get upset.” Ask anyone who has worked in a call center on one of these campaigns about it.

There is no “if” about it. This does happen. My point is that logic would have a better chance to rule if personality, party affiliation… were left out of the equation and ONLY the policy was considered.

Example: If Hillary were to say, “I think people should pay tithing,” the reaction would be Bill dropped his pants. If Bush says the same thing people would respond, “Republicans don’t want to pay taxes.”

I believe that Issue X has a better chance of being debated on solely on its own merits if personality and party are left out of the equation.

Ben,

“Anyway, do you think anonymous writings (whether posts or comments or whatever) carry enough weight that they could do the same thing nowadays? Or is there a stigma attached?”

It depends on the topic and the expertise of the person making the comment. A person with celebrity is oft given a weighted advantage over a learned person with a deep understanding. What does actor X know about foreign policy that makes him the expert? On the other hand, if an expert were to debate anonymously, given their superior knowledge of the topic, the expert’s argument should prevail if properly presented.

My take on it is that logic would prevail if everything else was left out of the mix. However, if the topic is a moral issue, personality would play a weighted role in the outcome.

Janet: Campaigning is different than an underground, unacknowledged campaign. Remember how people leapt on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because they had ties to the Bush campaign? If you’re a public figure, making statements in favor of your own position, you should have the guts to put your name at the end, so there’s no mistake as to who’s saying these things. Otherwise, you’re misleading the public, pure and simple. There’s a reason candidates for office have to run those “This is M, and I approve this message” statements at the end of their ads.

Janet: In a perfect world, yes, it would be nice to debate solely on the merits of the policy itself in a logical manner, uninfluenced by personality or party. But, as my comment about the weight and stigma of an anonymous comment was meant to convey, I think that anonymity is too often associated with having something to hide, and so it seems like it wouldn’t quite work. There’s too much baggage associated with anonymity.

M: Agreed. (Again. :))

So, just for tangent’s sake, I thought I’d throw a Simpson’s quote into the mixture:

Lisa: A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.
Bart: Not if you call ‘em stenchblossoms.

I think names DO carry weight, despite our ideal that content matters. We tell people not to judge a book by its cover because, the fact is, they do. I believe it’s true that using a real name carries more credibility than a silly alias like “smoochmonkey” or something along those lines. That’s why we use real names or initials in work e-mail addresses–because we want to look professional. And if you were looking in the yellow pages for a lawyer, would you rather pick someone named Ginger or someone named Catherine?

Ginger, in a heartbeat. (Although I’m more of a Mary Ann kind of guy)

Book covers. Oh, that’s a bit of a sore spot for me. I really don’t like Catcher in the Rye, but I’m not throwing it off my bookshelf because that cover is just so darn good.

Haley: Haha, stenchblossoms — wow. That’s hilarious. Good points, too. Do you think the alias “Anonymous” falls somewhere in between one’s real name and “smoochmonkey” on the credibility scale? I’m afraid I associate the name Ginger with the evil lawyer-esque cat in C.S. Lewis’s The Last Battle, but I agree with M, I’m more of a Mary Ann kind of guy.

M: I need to remember that as I make my books. :) Covers certainly make a difference for me, along with typography (a biggie) and paper type and the feel of the book. For the record, I love the feel of Nicholas Basbanes’ books.

I did so love A Gentle Madness.

I have it but (gasp) haven’t read it yet. (I’m reading Every Book Its Reader first. But I’m itching to start AGM next.)