- I got to see my very first real aurora last month (living in the rural north has benefits!) It was not nearly as flashy as the following link, but it was still stunningly amazing. It does mean I’ve been clicking on aurora pictures even more than usual, though, and I particularly liked this post from Phil Plait over at Bad Astronomy with a time lapse movie made from aurora still shots in Norway by Nicholas Buer. Click(and as Phil says, full-screen) if you need 2.5 minutes of beauty in your day.
- Also, the 21 best astronomy images of 2012.
- (And the one a friend sent me on Wednesday, a gorgeous image of Saturn. And the Milky Way and a lighthouse. Look, I like pictures of stars and planets and stuff, okay?)
- If you are looking for something to read, the MeFi wiki index of questions about books is extremely comprehensive.
- The power of the books you read at 12.
- I’m not sure if this goes in books or culture, but how do you deal with fantasy agricultures (specifically, how do you grow wine in a country with seasons as messed up as Westeros?)
- Why we need comfort reading.
- Curious George’s great escape. (I half knew some of this, but it’s an amazing story.)
Copyright, so complicated:
Community and culture:
- AskAManager had a recent conversation about class – what things you need to know to work in a white-collar environment that may not be obvious if you’re not familiar with that kind of setting. It’s a sort of imperfect discussion, because the topic is So Big, but as someone who works with people from a variety of backgrounds, I think it’s a good start.
- Ann Patchett on independent bookstores. Specifically, starting one.
- I keep chewing over Anil Dash’s “The Web We Lost” in the way that makes me think there will be more writing from me about it eventually.
- Vienna Teng’s draft of the hymn of axciom – fascinating both for the content, and for the fact that technology makes this kind of sharing possible.
- TEDx and Bad Science: there’s a fascinating article from the TED folks about how to vet for bad science in TEDx talks – interesting both for the specifics, and for the general “how do we talk about evaluating stuff”. Bad Astronomy talks about it a bit more, too.
- 250 year old codes. Society of the Golden Poodle. Secret societies. What more do you want out of a story?
- Also in the history department: a Ponzi scheme for flappers.
- The Lying Disease: truth, lies, and the Internet.
- How Pompeii perished (and the misassumptions about the nature of geology that pervade our ideas about it.)
- The history and implications of the Zapruder film.
Myth 1: Using a ‘real name’ reduces problematic behavior.
This myth is a myth because it makes having a ‘name that looks like a real name’ equivalent with ‘name associated with a history that the poster cares about’. The problem is, these are not necessarily the same thing. (And thinking they are won’t solve your problems.)
Reality: There’s nothing to stop someone making up a name that looks ‘real’. Unless, of course, you start requiring things like linking it to a credit card (which is not appropriate for many uses and has significant security concerns if you don’t want there to be major risk of identity theft. More understandable if you’re Amazon.com, but not so good for small sites.
Reality: It’s also not solely the legal name that prevents harassment – instead, it’s the link to an identity that someone cares about. Someone using a persistent pseudonym often cares about its reputation. Someone using their legal name may not for whatever reason (no matter how foolish that might end up being for them in the long run.)
Truth: Realistically, people who really want to harass will find ways to do it. For most circumstances, your average reader is not going to check out that Jane Doe is actually Jane Doe. What they’re going to care about is whether Jane Doe is interesting, thoughtful – and consistent with Jane Doe’s past history. Those things don’t require the name. They do benefit from history.
There’s also the problem of verifying the ‘real name’. There are ways this can work – Amazon’s process, which uses the name on the credit/debit card you have on file with them. But even there, there are problems, and in other settings, it gets even more complicated. For example, looking at Blizzard, many teens have accounts under their parent’s name – so the verifiable name on the account would be the parent, not the person (theoretically posting.)
Myth 2: Anything worth saying can be said using a legal identity.
Well, no. Really not.
If you force people to use a legal name, what you tend to hear are things that are socially acceptable to say. But there’s a lot that goes unsaid. People who are in the minority in that community will be less inclined to speak up (whether that’s due to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, relationship preferences, background, or whatever else.)
People with health issues (their own, or their family’s) may not be willing to share useful information with others – for fear that employers or health insurers will take their comments out of context. People who have good reason to avoid being identified (those with stalkers, violent exes, etc.) won’t comment either.
While hurtful and trolling anonymous comments (those meant solely to disrupt a conversation) are a problem, I tend to think that not hearing all those other voices is even more of one. And there are other good and thoughtful ways to reduce the problematic comments, while allowing people to select a name that represents them – but that doesn’t reveal more than they’re comfortable with.
Myth 3: You can stay out of trouble online, just avoid saying anything that causes offense.
When you figure out what that topic is, please share. Pretty much anything can cause offense to someone, somewhere.
Plus, you’re assuming that all people out there are reasonable. Many people *are* reasonable. But there are people out there who aren’t – people who for whatever reason can fixate on someone (or something – it can be a topic) and be anywhere from extremely bothersome and disruptive to dangerous.
Myth 4: Privacy (and related settings) can fix the above concerns just fine.
Not so. Too many sites have gone along with one set of privacy settings only to change them fairly rapidly (and not always with advance notice to users) to make this one believable anymore. A site can’t share information it doesn’t have. It might share what you did. (So our internet history tells us, and we all know the line about those who don’t know their history being doomed to repeat it…)
(I missed last week’s both because a bunch of travel for a job interview threw my schedule off, and because I’ve been in the midst of the Real Name posts.)
Related to the link a few weeks ago about how browsing the stacks is dated, here’s a very nice counter example from Barbara Fister on Library Journal Online who makes a case for mindful browsing as peer-to-peer review.
If you’re like me (and many of my generation) who learned a whole lot from Our Bodies, Ourselves, you might, like me, be delighted to discover that the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective has a blog. Recent posts include information about a revised scale for maximum heart rate for women, and about proposed changes to visiting rules in hospitals (especially of interest LGBTQ folks, but of use to many others as well.) That post includes the links on how to make comments on the formal proposal and other good things.
A discussion on Metafilter about bookless libraries. It’s rather more anti-library than might be productive, but I think it’s also useful to be reminded that different libraries serve different purposes. (I particularly like Hildegarde’s comments, in terms of explaining that.)
For people unfamiliar with libaries, donations not only require time to decide if they’re appropriate additions, but they also require staff time and resources to process – cataloging, labeling, property stamping, adding a protective cover, and so on and so forth. The library I previously worked at, this comes out to a dollar or two of supplies, and probably 10-15 minutes of someone’s time per book: it doesn’t seem like much, but it adds up fast when you’re talking more than a handful of books. (And when that someone has a bunch of other stuff that they also need to do…)
And a great slideshow from a researcher at Google (Paul Adams) talking about the challenges of social networks in terms of how we actually form and have relationships with people. Great stuff.
And finally, Blizzard has announced that they’re retracting their decision to require real names on forum posts: much more information on the WoW forums. (I still plan to continue with the Real Name series, don’t worry, because we all know this is going to come up again.)
Before we get into the more interesting meat of the topic (which will follow next week), I want to go into a digression about the problem of ‘real names’.
First problem: What does a ‘real name’ look like?
We like to think that we know them when we see them. But really, we don’t. Some names look perfectly reasonable, but might not be real. (People with ‘Smith’ as a last name, and a common first name sometimes have this problem in reverse.) Some people have hyphens in their names. Some people have two ‘last’ names and no hyphen. And of course, many cultures have patterns of naming that do not fall tidily into the English-language derived versions of firstname lastname.
There’s a great post by Patrick, a programmer, talking about the problems simply designing a system to handle names – of all types – appropriately that goes into far more depth. Or, as he puts it, the myths that programmers believe about names.
So, when we’re saying ‘use a real name’, what we’re actually saying is ‘use a name that other people recognise as ‘real’. In which case, we should also realise that that can have its own problems.
Second problem: Is that name actually a unique identifier?
I have a very common first name (Jennifer) and a much less common last name (at least in the US: it’s much more common in Ireland, parts of England, and Australia). But what about all the people out there who really are named John Smith? Or Mary Williams?
Requiring a ‘real name’ in an online setting runs the chance of these people being mistaken for one another very easily indeed. Using a unique username in the system, however – something determined by the person themselves – not only gives a unique identifier to everyone else, but helps people stand out a bit, because their personality shows through in the choices.
I suspect you have a different response to ModernHypatia as a username than you would to JCArnott than you would to MNLibrarian. My name doesn’t tell you a lot about me, and neither does MNLibrarian – but ModernHypatia, I hope, gives you a little bit of a sense of my personality and interests that are still totally appropriate for a professional conversation. And I suspect that, if we have an extended conversation, it’s more likely to stick in your head and be remembered later, for good and for bad, than if I just go by Jennifer. (There being many Jennifers out there in the world.)
Third problem: Does that name really represent us?
Whenever we get our name (as the above link points out, that’s not always at birth!), it often comes before we even begin to develop our own independent personalities.
I’ve talked about one variant of this with friends many times: my parents almost named me Penelope, and my older brother and sister talked them out of it, quite rightly pointing out that I’d get teased through school *and* that at least half my teachers would be unable to pronounce it. (And indeed, a scary number of people think it ought to rhyme with cantaloupe. In classical Greek, where it comes from, it’s pen-EH-lo-pee) These days, I’d love to use it as a name. But I agree with my siblings: it would have been horrible throughout my school years.
Instead, I have the opposite problem: Jennifer was the most common name for girls not only the year I was born, but for five years on either side (and it was in the top 10 girls names for far longer.) That means that there’s a lot of Jennifers out there. There were four in my late elementary school class of about 22 people (half of whom were boys, so over a third of the girls were named Jennifer.) And somewhere around high school – certainly before college – I stopped answering to it reliably.
These days, if you yell “Hey, Jen!” at me, or “Hey, Jennifer!” from across a crowded room, or a field, or anywhere, I’m unlikely to turn around. That name is rarely for me. It’s like hearing a cell phone go off, when you personally don’t get a lot of calls: you don’t bother checking your pocket.
Among my friends, my religious community, my writing – pretty much anywhere other than actual ‘go to work in professional job’ work – I go by a different name, these days. (And that, incidentally, is a name I’ve got paid writing credits for, which is more than I can say for my legal name.) That name also looks quite like a ‘real name’, albeit a much less common one. But I answer to it far better – yell it across a crowded room, and I turn around. Mention it online, and my eyes pick it up far more reliably than to ‘Jen’ or ‘Jennifer’.
So, which one’s real? Good question. There’s certainly a lot to be said for the stability of my legal name, the one on things like my driver’s license, bank account, and so on. But in terms of reputation and social connection and a history I’m attached to (and would not want to mess up – one of the arguments for using ‘real names’), they’re actually both equally important to me. And perhaps – just perhaps – the pseudonym is actually more valuable to me, because I’ve invested a lot more time in developing its history and reliability online (though these days, I’m evening that up with this blog and other professional interactions.)
Fourth problem: The question of history
One of the questions I’ll be getting into next week is *why* people think that a ‘real name’ reduces problems online. (It is by no means nearly as cut and dry as sometimes presented.) But one of the arguments is that people have history attached to their ‘real name’, and they don’t want to mess up that history.
With me – as with a number of other people of my generation, we who got online in the 90s in college, and who are still around, now with a decade or more of online history under our belts – that’s often not the case. I, like many of my friends, actually have far more history under other names than under my legal name – because, in general, I reserve my legal name for situations where it’s relevant. Professional discussions, materials, and related topics – but not purely personal topics, or ones where I want a casual search to turn up material.
There’s the job-hunting argument, of course. But there’s also the reality that for the last ten years, I worked at an independent school with smart kids, smart parents, and plenty of people capable of plugging a name into Google to see what comes up. While I certainly talked about personal topics at work in appropriate ways for a school – religion, politics, hobbies, health and well-being, and many others do come up in a community – I did not and do not want that to be the material that shows up in a casual search on my legal name. I’d rather talk about those things in the context of a specific conversation with specific people.
In person, that’s easy.
Online, I use another name (the name most people know me by these days outside of work, which is really a pseudonym) for those conversations, to keep the distinction clear. I’m not doing anything embarrassing or inappropriate or that I’m ashamed of under that name. Just having conversations in a specific context which would take an awful lot of footnoting to make any sense if people from outside those communities and specific conversations wandered in.
In other words, the non-legal name actually has a great deal more online history attached to it than the legal one, so if someone is looking to try and get a fuller picture of me, my interests, and online history, it’s actually more useful. I am, of course, clear with people who might need to know what my legal name is in both contexts.
Coming next week, a look at the myths around why people think using a ‘real name’ is better, and eventually a look at the legal and related issues around privacy (which are very complex: I do not pretend to be an expert, but do hope to point at some useful resources for further learning.)
I’ve been watching the conversations about the new RealID additions on the Blizzard forums with some interest, because they tie into a much larger conversation about online interactions and anonymity and pseudonymity. So, in the next week or so, a few posts about first, some background, and then some specific concerns and considerations around the use of real-world identifying names online.
Why does this matter on a librarian’s blog?
Well, first, because I use the ‘Net, and I’m fascinated by how other people use it, and about how to help give people tools to make informed choices for their use of it.
But also because I think this is one of the major freedom of information issues of at least the next decade: how do we balance a desire for sincere conversation, with meaning and history and in the context of a particular community, with the reality that some people will abuse, harass, intimidate, or otherwise seek to harm others. Silencing those who have minority perspectives of whatever kind reduces the amount of information and experience we can all learn from, so finding some solution seems essential.
To start with, some history
(I’ll be getting into the problems of defining a ‘real’ name in part 2: for right now, please just bear with me.)
The question of whether to use a ‘real’ name online is one that goes far back into the distant Internet past, back to the time when online interaction was almost exclusively via access either at work or through a university, the days of Usenet, the very earliest email servers, and related things.
But as the ‘Net grew, people wanted to talk about things that they didn’t necessarily want to connect to a name their co-workers would recognise. Health issues. Relationship concerns. Religion. Hobbies that – while perfectly legal and reasonable – might not be the thing they wanted to be known for at work. And so people started using online names that weren’t linked to their legal identities. This got a lot easier once it was common to have more than one email address, and when that email address was no longer tied to where you worked or where you went to school. (My experience was that it got a lot easier round about 1995 or so.)
There’s also the other part – the part that a number of people I know who’ve been online a while – know well enough. That using your ‘real’ name opens you up to a wide range of potential harassment. Everything from having comments disparaged for using an obviously female name to getting a phone call late at night from someone who makes it very clear they know where you live, and that they can get there quite quickly. I’m particularly familiar with it from the ‘being female’ side, but there’s all sorts of other variants.
And even when it’s not harassment in a legal sense, it can often be disruptive to the conversation. Someone who gets hassled even a tenth of the time they’re online is much less likely to be in public discussions online: they’re much more likely to spend their time and energy in smaller, more focused spaces with better control over behavior – not over names. Totally understandable, but it changes the public conversation, all those voices we then don’t hear.
Are these things common? Depends on the person, depends on their online patterns, depends on other things in their life. (Someone living in a college dorm or apartment complex with decent security is in a different setting than someone living by themselves, for example. Someone whose religious choices, relationship choices, hobby choices are very much in the mainstream is in a different position than someone whose choices aren’t.) But they’re common enough that many people – of all genders – find benefit in pseudonymity, for at least some of their online interactions.
Now, over time, various companies have tried different modes of encouraging ‘real name’ interaction. Generally – and this is the part I want to explore in the near future – they say that part of their goal is to encourage a more real and transparent interaction, to provide more authority in conversations online.
A few of these – though by no means all:
And some additional background commentary from the Geek Feminism wiki page on pseudeonymity and another page from the same wiki specifically on conversation around LaunchPad’s (a project management website used extensively for Ubuntu development) policies around names with some excellent illustrative quotes.