Kelly wrote, "For example, the (perceived) positions of many people on this message board about certain issues are very well-known, and this tends to lead to sweeping categorizations, such as "so and so despises such and such a format"; when this happens, a common result is that any point (valid or not) made by the person on that subject tends to be summarily dismissed by an argument such as "oh, he or she is just saying that because they hate the format". In a case like this, an anonymous post stating the same point might have a more positive influence, since it will likely recieve a more fair examination on its merits." This is an argument I've seen made several times over the years to justify anonymous posting. While on the surface it looks valid, it contains a contradiction that invalidates it. If a person is making a preconceived judgement about the validity of an argument based on the poster, might not that person be equally likely to discount an argument on the theory that posts from anonymous sources are suspect as well? There is no inherent value to anonymity that gives an argument from an anonymous source any more validity than that made from an identified poster (and given the general level of anonymous posts encountered, I would argue for a face value of less for anonymous posters). I also think that the worry that someone with a preconceived notion about a poster summarily dismissing an idea based on who the poster is carries any weight is overblown in fact, though people may have that worry. Relatively few of the currently 897* members of this club actually ever post. Most posts, in fact, are made by a handfull of people. It has never been demonstrated that the opinions expressed here actually represent those of more than the handfull of the community who post, or even that an opinion left unchallenged is accepted by the majority of those who post. There is no way to tell what the majority of readers think just by looking at how many posts are on what topic, and no way to measure how influential, if at all, the public dismissal of an idea is to the rest of the community. Personally, I give more weight to posts that are signed.** People tend to want to be associated with the ideas they think have value, and posting anonymously only imples that the poster wants to be protected from consequences if the idea turns out to be bad. If the poster thinks there may be consequences, the poster should (IMO) think about it some more before posting. Though I can't really imagine what practical negative consequences there are, except to ego. Tom Speaking only for myself, and not for any institution or organization with which I may or may not be affiliated. *This number is obviously inflated, because of the number of people who belong to the club under more than one i.d. **Of course, even a signed post can come from a fake i.d. It's ridiculously easy to forge a convincing internet identity with a yahoo or hotmail account - but use of such accounts is a necessary defense to keep spam out of "real" accounts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST