 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Blogging Anonymously
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Blogging Anonymously |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Azizi Date: 09 Jun 06 - 06:01 PM Yesterday I read an political diary on Tips on how to blog anonymously & safely [by bluerevolt; on dailykos Thu Jun 08, 2006] Some of the tips mentioned were: ALWAYS use a pseudonym. Choose a good pseudonym that does not give away your name, location, occupation, or any other identifying information about you. NEVER give out any information, no matter how insignificant it may seem, that could serve to identify you. Remember that a small tidbit in one posting may seem like no big deal, but many small tidbits in many postings can add up quickly. NEVER post your real name. Never post the real names of your family members or friends. -snip- These tips were written for bloggers who post on a political site. The writer warned about folks who might be collecting information or noting person's positions & activism as part of governmental and/or governmental spying activity. The writer and other commentors warned that there were crazy people out there who might harrass or threaten [or have harrassed and threatened] bodily harm to an individual and his or her family because of positions that the blogger has taken in online posts. In addition, some comments addressed concerns about identity theft and other grave consequences that may occur as a result of non-anonymous blogging. I'm wondering if folks here think that these concerns might be relevant for people posting on Mudcat and other music/folk culture sites. Needless to say, I've done all of these things, but I never really gave a thought to whether it was safe to do so or not. I'm also very interested in 'Catters' [and Guests'] opinions about whether people should post identifying information because on Mudcat threads I have asked people to provide such information {for instance I routinely ask folks contributing to children's rhyme threads if they would include demographical information such as the geographical location {city/state if in the United States or city, nation if outside of the United States} where they learned a particular children's rhyme. And on my website I encourage individuals to include that kind of demographical information along with the examples of rhymes or other material that they may submit. It appears that a number of children and youth are among the 'informants' who have sent in material to my website. Although I don't request that people provide their first & last name, some people do. My practice has been to post the name that the person provided if & when I post the material that they send. A small percentage of the children/youth and adults who send in material for that website, give their first & last name AND the name of their city/state. Given that online diary, I'm unsure if I should continue to post full names of respondents, particularly if I post the person's geographical location. However, it seems to me that in the interest of research, collection, and analysis of children's rhymes and other cultural artifacts {like fraternity or sorority chants, and slang},it's important to gather as much information from informants as possible. It seems to me that having additional information about the informant adds to the richness of the examples that are collected, and aids in achieving a more accurate and full interpretion of that example. For these reasons, I request that folks submitting material to my site include such demographics as the decade when the material was recited, the race/ethnicity, and gender of the person reciting the material, and the performance method {such as if children's rhymes whether the rhyme is 'done' with accompaning movements such as jump rope or handclapping routines}. Maybe this doesn't need to conflict with the advise that people should blog anonymously. But I certainly feel that such a conflict is possible. All this to ask: Is it advisable for a person to post using his or her real name on Mudcat or any other site? And on my website, if I'm given the first and last name of children/youth or adults who send in an example of a rhyme or any other material, should I post that child's or youth's or adult's full name or just post their first name {or nickname or screen name} and the initial of their last name? Your comments on this subject and responses to those specific questions will be greatly appreciated. Azizi |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: GUEST Date: 09 Jun 06 - 06:23 PM What a great thread, Aziza. I enjoy posting under my Mudcat name very much. It gives me a freedom to say whatever the hell I want, without feeling bound by the strictures of my day job to keep my mouth shut. It is a great release to have my own voice, even if under my own Mudcat pseudonym. Not that I have much to say that's that world shattering, but it's nice to be able to say it. Re: any posts to do with children, I would always just post their first name {or nickname or screen name} and the initial of their last name. Sheherazade |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Clinton Hammond Date: 09 Jun 06 - 06:28 PM Blogging Anonymously is totally worthless.... If you don't have the stones to OWN what you say, your saying it ain't worth beans |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Scoville Date: 09 Jun 06 - 07:10 PM I don't generally blog anonymously. I don't really consider blogging/posting under a Mudcat (or whatever forum) nickname "anonymous" because I always use the same name and if I say something asinine, y'all know it's me so it's not like I'm getting away with anything. Likewise, in my circle of blog acquaintances, they all know it's me and know where to find me. I never post comments to their blogs anonymously. As far as geographical location and other info, it goes on a case-by-case basis. If it's somebody I know and I'm PM-ing them, or posting to a forum that I know has a limited interest base, I may give other info of varying degrees of specificity. I don't give a lot of particulars in public places for safety reasons. I never give real names of third parties in posts because some people are weird about that and it's just less of a hassle in case they ever run across the post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: dianavan Date: 09 Jun 06 - 08:53 PM I think people should always blog anonymously. If I weren't anonymous, I would feel very intimidated by some of the things that Martin and other Guests have said to and about me and my family. I also think it is the best way to voice your opinions when the government of the day thinks that if you're against their policies, you are a threat to their power. In fact, the internet may be the only place left to discuss politics because you certainly can't rely on the media to keep you informed. At least on the internet, you have a variety of opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Clinton Hammond Date: 09 Jun 06 - 10:11 PM " If I weren't anonymous, I would feel very intimidated" Can't understand why.... Or do you think that Martin or any of the 'guests' here would BOTHER tracking you down in real life?? I suspect, if they are not too lazy, they at least have better things to do..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: number 6 Date: 09 Jun 06 - 10:58 PM blog ... such a dire sounding word. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Clinton Hammond Date: 09 Jun 06 - 11:20 PM Dire? It's just short-hand for web-log.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: number 6 Date: 09 Jun 06 - 11:25 PM Then call it web-log ... that sounds much better, as it has a harmonic 'ring' to it ... unlike blog ... which sounds like a bad attmept at a 'B' chord. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: dianavan Date: 10 Jun 06 - 12:05 AM Clinton - I didn't think anyone would bother, either. Imagine my surprise when someone PM'd to say they were in town. I'm also surprised (and delighted) that I've received any PM's. Martin, however, was a very threatening personality. I would hope that he wouldn't bother tracking me down but, being male, you probably do not have a clue about how it feels to be stalked. In fact, I'd say by the quality of your posts that you don't have a clue about anyone's feelings but your own. You've mentioned a partner...lucky girl! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Clinton Hammond Date: 10 Jun 06 - 01:13 AM Martin was a frightened little coward... over compensating for feelings of inadequacy.... anyone could see that a mile off.... I have plenty of 'clue' about feelings.... I just don't understand pussy-ism..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: dianavan Date: 10 Jun 06 - 03:03 AM pussy-ism? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Clinton Hammond Date: 10 Jun 06 - 03:59 AM Wimp-ishness |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Azizi Date: 10 Jun 06 - 04:10 AM "Re: any posts to do with children, I would always just post their first name {or nickname or screen name} and the initial of their last name". -Sheherazad I want to thank Guest Sheherazad above for her comment that I'm quoting. As a result of her comment, and my concerns re the fact that there are crazies on the Internet as well as elsewhere, I have edited the last names of 'informants' that were posted on my website www.cocojams.com, leaving only the first name {nickname or screen name}, and the initial of the last name. [I started with the pages that are primarily children's centered such as cheerleader rhymes, and insulting rhymes. And I intend to go through all of the pages of that website and remove the last names of adults also]. In addition, I removed the names of schools, and the grade level the child is in in that school. I also edited the "contact us" of that website to reflect this change. And I posted a notice of the policy of only using first names {or nickname or screen names with or without an initial of the last name}. I should note that in the introduction to Shermans & Weisskopf's 1995 book "Greasy Grimey Gopher Guts: The Subversive Folklore of Childhood", the authors indicated that they use the first name and last initial of their informants because children were shy. When I edited those Cocojams web pages, I was surprised at the number of entries that I had of informants who had sent in their first name & last name. Maybe it's only the really confident child who would make the effort [easy as it is] to send in examples of rhymes and other materials. But I think it's more going on than that. I actually think that children/youth like to see their name in print. Be that as it may, I believe removing last names from children centered pages {and from other pages as I will do} is the right decision. Thanks, again! Azizi |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Azizi Date: 10 Jun 06 - 04:19 AM I'm hoping that folks will return to the other questions I had posted: To rephrase that question, is there a need for persons posting on non-political sites [and-I would add- posting about non-political subjects such as music/folkculture] to be refrain from posting identifying information about themselves? If the answer is yes, than couldn't the lack of demographical information negatively impact the interpretation and analysis of examples & other material posted? And to add a related question, doesn't restrictions on the inclusion of identifying information from 'informants' lessen the power and possibilities of using the Internet in general and discussion forums in particular as sources of folklore collection? I'm interested in your opinions on these questions. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: freda underhill Date: 10 Jun 06 - 04:39 AM Hi Azizi I agree with Dianavan that psudonyms are handy for the reasons she has given. & I agree that the internet is a wonderful way to spread information and to document and save cultural info. Re posting about music/folkculture, you could document your sources separately and keep them archived (eg donate copies of them to libraries or universities) while publishing the results in an edited or transformed (eg using pseudonyms, net names) version. That way you have your sources available to verify the work you do. It seems you have an encyclopaedic amount of work collected - I'll bet some educational publishers would be very interested in it. freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Azizi Date: 10 Jun 06 - 07:19 AM Freda, I appreciate your response. That does sound like a way for rhyme collectors to get around the concerns about the safeguarding the lifes and identities of informants who they meet directly with or have some non-Internet contact with through secondary sources apart from the Internet. Yet if there are reasons why it is not advisable for people to post identifying information over the Internet, and if the conditions that make those reasons advisable doesn't change and if & when people using the Internet become accustomed to being closed about the sharing of any personal informantion, then it seems to me that that-rightly or wrongly- will have a negative impact on collecting cultural artifacts -with documentation- over the Internet. Even if you tell people that such information will not be posted, it seems that they would be unlikely to share it. On discussion forums such as Mudcat, it is possible to engage people in conversations to elicit clarifying or additional informaton about the examples of 'cultural artifacts' that they share. I have attempted-with minimal results-to do this on my website and on another website's thread on children's rhymes that I post to: http://blog.oftheoctopuses.com/000518.php Emailing Internet respondents who have included their email address with their submission is another strategy that I have used to gather additional information or clarifying information about examples that are submitted to my website. {Needless to say, I don't publish those email addresses or give them to secondary sources}. But for whatever reasons, few of these respondents re-contact me. And if concerns about the safety of providing identifying information on public forums and concerns about providing personal email addresses to website management becomes more widespread than it is now, it seems that fewer people may give their email addresses and/or respond to private request from that management for additional or clarifying information about their submissions of rhymes, songs, etc. However, I hasten to say that my concerns about this topic aren't limited to my experiences with my website. I'm wondering if any others believe that there is or there would be a negative impact to folk culture research, analysis, and informal information sharing if folks are reluctant to post or asked not to post identifying information on the Internet as was advised in that dailykos dairy whose link is included in this thread's initial post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: mack/misophist Date: 10 Jun 06 - 10:01 AM Unless you want to pay extra for an anonymizing service and put up with the delays it will inevitibly cause, there is no privacy on the internet. The administrators of the sites you connect to have your IP address, which defines your area, especially if you use DSL. Any sufficiently skilled user can probably track you down if there is enough incentive. Keep in mind that you have no more privacy here than you would in a cafe or a bar and behave accordingly. As for using nicknames, some say that the web is full of potential nut cases whose attention you don't want to attract. Others say personal integrity rules out anything but real names. Take your pick. I do both. If you did something illegal, your ISP will comply with a proper warrant. They have your e-mail and surfing records. As far as I know. only those with access to zombie networks can expect any real privacy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Azizi Date: 12 Jun 06 - 09:13 AM I'm refreshing this thread in case folks who don't have access to the Internet over the weekend didn't get a chance to see this thread and want to read these opinions and join in this discussion. Best wishes, Azizi |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Blogging Anonymously From: Amos Date: 12 Jun 06 - 01:40 PM The use of anonymity in referring to sources is time-honored. In nineteenth-century books it is quite common, when real-life situations are being described, to see references to Mister A or Doctor L____ B____, or similarly disguised names, in order to honor the privacy of those being mentioned. This was not only because there were madcaps who might want to take up a personal argument with named persons, but also simply out of respect for their right to determine where and how their name was to be used in public. While I have always used my own name on the Mudcat, and elsewhere, there have been times when that simple act of trust was taken advantage by people who disagreed with what I had to say and preferred to launch ad hominem attacks rather than address issues. I have personally always felt that this minor nuisance was generally worth the benefits of being simply who I am and not having to get complex about multiple identities. Of course, some folks are inherently tied up in multiple identities, a priori, and would find this notion hard to understand! :D A |
