- comment
CR UVa - body
- Uhh, Shaun, I looked over the poll information and I see nothing to support your claim "authentic bloggers win over pseudonyms". Think you can back up that claim based on the evidence presented?
Please, give that up. There are people out there who have good reason to keep their identities secret, and all others have the right to remain without their given name. I might remind you, as I am sure others have, that the Federalist Papers were, in reality, some of the earliest pseudonymous blogs.
- comment Megan
- body
- After everything we talked about Wed. night...
you just keep stealing from black folks....
- comment Alice
- body
- Digby is one of the most popular blogs in the English language. What's wrong with pseudonyms?
- comment Charles
- body
- The Federalist papers were issue papers. Blogs posting about issues can by anonymous, as the issues stand on their own merits, by the force of the arguments made.
Bloggers which attack other people and use pseudonyms are just cowards who deserve nothing but contempt.
- comment Doogman
- body
- $60 - $90K incomes?
(falls out of chair hooting with laugher)
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I won't rehash my stand on this more than what I have, other than by presenting it in a brief overview.
The first two principles feed into the third.
(1) Transparency. Blog authors must be honest about who they are. So let's say that there is a pseudonymous blog that purports to blog about education and claims to be a teacher... but is neither a teacher nor has a background in education. That's a strike against transparency in the former (authenticity in the latter). Some people honestly do have to blog pseudonymously, but readers instantly should be mentally trained to question the source.
(2) Authenticity. Posts must be authentic content. If you're not an educator, say so. If you're a paid blogger, say so. If you're talking about Bhuddism and you're really a Catholic, say so.
(3) Containment. The degree of which a blog is both transparent and authentic feeds into this last ethic, and that ethic is on the part of the reader. The reader must be able to contain - or "consider the source" - the information presented. So if a blogger is a pseudonym and hurls invective at all comers, the reader gets to contain that information presented as low on the transparency scale, and low on the authenticity scale, and contains the information.
A great example of how this protects good pseudonyms is Jaded JD. On a scale of 1-10, let's say JD is a 6 for transparecny, but a 10 in authenticity. Average it out, and the reader can contain the information presented with a value of 8.
Now let's say I Hate Dems is a blogger who exposes liberals, claims to be a well funded PAC, and does nothing but threaten other bloggers and candidates. Transparency is low (1), and authentic content is low (1), so the reader can contain this at a 1.
Let's argue otherwise. John Smith is a blogger who posts some really insightful commentary. Insightful because he is paid to do so. Transparency wise, if he discloses his paid status, that resolves some issues, but lowers the authenticity of his content (depending on how his information is presented). If he discloses, and the content is good, a paid blogger could be a good resource. If John Smith doesn't disclose his paid status, and the content is little more than re-hashed and poorly phrased talking points, then both transparency and authenticity get racheted down appropriately.
The Federalist Papers. Here the transparency is pretty thin (Publius) other than the authors are highly placed Federalists (7?). But the content is authentic to the extreme (10). So as a reader, am I inclined to value this work (8.5?). I would answer yes. Now if the Federalist papers were highly placed Federalists (7) writing vitriolic screeds against Anti-Federalists (1), then my inclination as a reader would be to reject such nonsense (4) and we wouldn't even be mentioning them today.
It's not a black-and-white system, and it is one that relies entirely on the reader to exercise judgment. Nor is there some intellectual vapor barrier at which a blog rises from trash to treasure.
But the more transparent an author is, and the more authentic the content of the blog is, then the more likely a blog is to be trusted. For the opposite, the less transparent a blog is, and the less authentic the content is, then the blog is apporpriately "contained" by the reader and no one else.
One could very easily apply this ethic to virtually every piece of information you receive, though it is a bit more difficult to measure when you are dealing with institutions that have some degree of reputation (i.e. I'd be more inclined to believe something I read in the Washington Post than the National Enquirer regardless of the author).
It is a self-imposed, negative based ethic. It demands bloggers and authors to prove their credentials to the reader, and it doesn't require silly mandated ethical codes imposed eihter from within or from outside (like our Virginia lawmakers may consider from time to time).
6 Comments:
Please, give that up. There are people out there who have good reason to keep their identities secret, and all others have the right to remain without their given name. I might remind you, as I am sure others have, that the Federalist Papers were, in reality, some of the earliest pseudonymous blogs.
you just keep stealing from black folks....
Bloggers which attack other people and use pseudonyms are just cowards who deserve nothing but contempt.
(falls out of chair hooting with laugher)
The first two principles feed into the third.
(1) Transparency. Blog authors must be honest about who they are. So let's say that there is a pseudonymous blog that purports to blog about education and claims to be a teacher... but is neither a teacher nor has a background in education. That's a strike against transparency in the former (authenticity in the latter). Some people honestly do have to blog pseudonymously, but readers instantly should be mentally trained to question the source.
(2) Authenticity. Posts must be authentic content. If you're not an educator, say so. If you're a paid blogger, say so. If you're talking about Bhuddism and you're really a Catholic, say so.
(3) Containment. The degree of which a blog is both transparent and authentic feeds into this last ethic, and that ethic is on the part of the reader. The reader must be able to contain - or "consider the source" - the information presented. So if a blogger is a pseudonym and hurls invective at all comers, the reader gets to contain that information presented as low on the transparency scale, and low on the authenticity scale, and contains the information.
A great example of how this protects good pseudonyms is Jaded JD. On a scale of 1-10, let's say JD is a 6 for transparecny, but a 10 in authenticity. Average it out, and the reader can contain the information presented with a value of 8.
Now let's say I Hate Dems is a blogger who exposes liberals, claims to be a well funded PAC, and does nothing but threaten other bloggers and candidates. Transparency is low (1), and authentic content is low (1), so the reader can contain this at a 1.
Let's argue otherwise. John Smith is a blogger who posts some really insightful commentary. Insightful because he is paid to do so. Transparency wise, if he discloses his paid status, that resolves some issues, but lowers the authenticity of his content (depending on how his information is presented). If he discloses, and the content is good, a paid blogger could be a good resource. If John Smith doesn't disclose his paid status, and the content is little more than re-hashed and poorly phrased talking points, then both transparency and authenticity get racheted down appropriately.
The Federalist Papers. Here the transparency is pretty thin (Publius) other than the authors are highly placed Federalists (7?). But the content is authentic to the extreme (10). So as a reader, am I inclined to value this work (8.5?). I would answer yes. Now if the Federalist papers were highly placed Federalists (7) writing vitriolic screeds against Anti-Federalists (1), then my inclination as a reader would be to reject such nonsense (4) and we wouldn't even be mentioning them today.
It's not a black-and-white system, and it is one that relies entirely on the reader to exercise judgment. Nor is there some intellectual vapor barrier at which a blog rises from trash to treasure.
But the more transparent an author is, and the more authentic the content of the blog is, then the more likely a blog is to be trusted. For the opposite, the less transparent a blog is, and the less authentic the content is, then the blog is apporpriately "contained" by the reader and no one else.
One could very easily apply this ethic to virtually every piece of information you receive, though it is a bit more difficult to measure when you are dealing with institutions that have some degree of reputation (i.e. I'd be more inclined to believe something I read in the Washington Post than the National Enquirer regardless of the author).
It is a self-imposed, negative based ethic. It demands bloggers and authors to prove their credentials to the reader, and it doesn't require silly mandated ethical codes imposed eihter from within or from outside (like our Virginia lawmakers may consider from time to time).
Post a Comment
Home