In defence of pseudonymity

[pozorvlak]

Over the nearly two years I've been writing this blog, I've been trying to keep it pseudonymous. People often confuse pseudonymity with anonymity, but they're not at all the same thing. This piece, by the Wikipedian named DragonflySixtyseven, is amongst other things an impassioned defence of pseudonymity. I recommend it highly.

Comments

[susannahf.livejournal.com]

An interesting article. As an aside, your pseudonymity is such that I laboured under the impression that you were a random acquaintance of totherme who I had never met for quite some time - possibly until totherme disabused me of this notion.

[johnckirk.livejournal.com]

I agree that pseudonymity and anonymity are two different things, and the article is interesting. However, I think the main snag comes with source verification. It's easy to say that you can look at someone's track record, but that does require you to have a certain level of expertise.

For instance, someone told me a while back that there are some Hebrew words in the Old Testament which don't appear anywhere else, so any translation is going to be pretty much a guess based on context. I don't know any Hebrew, so this could be completely wrong, but I believe him because he has a PhD in Theology. However, what happens if someone on Wikipedia makes a similar claim? I could examine their history of edits, and see that they've made lots of other comments about Hebrew, but that won't tell me whether any of those edits are correct. It would help if I could rely on their credentials, but then you wind up with someone like Essjay, who falsely claimed to be a professor with two doctorates.

It doesn't bother me if you want to use a pseudonym on LJ, but that's because I know you; in fact, I know the real names of everyone on my friends list, and I don't see that ever changing.

[r-e-mercia.livejournal.com]

Yes, I can agree with pretty much all of that argument. R.E.Mercia is my writing (and silliness) identity, which ties most of my writing up to one source....but is an identity which at a passing glance has no connection to my name, which is trying to be a serious and sensible lawyer. You would be amazed how many lawyers think less of people once they have come out and admitted they spend their spare time writing panto.

As a related debate, WHY do people put up personal details so merrily on sites like facebook? With their real names attached?...perhaps not everyone wants pseudonymnity... but I'm not sure I understand it.

[susannahf.livejournal.com]

I mostly use my own name online. However, I assume that anything I post that isn't specifically protected (e.g. only visible to people I have friended) can and will be viewed by anyone, including parents, colleagues and potential employers, and censor accordingly. This is one reason why I have a very minimal facebook profile - I have facebook friends who I don't trust to keep even semi-confidential information.

Also, I pretty much operate a "take me or leave me" policy - if someone has a problem with me because of my religious/political/other beliefs, then that's their problem - I'm not going to pretend to be someone else for their peace of mind.

[penguinlord8017.livejournal.com]

Also, I pretty much operate a "take me or leave me" policy - if someone has a problem with me because of my religious/political/other beliefs, then that's their problem - I'm not going to pretend to be someone else for their peace of mind.

You have echoed the sentiment of the PenguinLords.

[kake]

So are you someone I know in real life, then?

[pozorvlak.livejournal.com]

Hah, I totally win at pseudonymity :-) I wouldn't say I know you very well in real life: we've met a couple of times (though fewer times than I've met rjw1), and you've probably seen me post on London.pm (though not for a few years).

[kake]

Would you mind telling me who you are, please? Email to kake@earth.li is fine if you don't want to post it here.