Posting Anonymously: Does it matter?

[Detector]

This is an issue on the minds of many potential posters. I would like to discuss a few of the issues involved.

Does posting anonymously have any credibility?
A very interesting question and one that we each should ask ourselves because the answer is with the reader/poster. For myself the answer is an easy yes. But then as someone that has been posting on forums for close to 20 years my view is probably different that others. I hold my reputation, as a poster, to a very high standard and stand behind every post I make.

OK, that sounds fine but that is only my opinion, what about the people who read my posts? They will only put the amount of credit to my post that they would give to their own posts. Knowing this, we all understand the potential for abuse. As well as the potential for abuse the is also the problem of a misunderstanding. Some posters are not confident in their ability to articulate as well as others.

Let me give an example that still bothers me to this day.

Some time back there was an interesting thread about how Native American Indians were used in the war to use their native language as code. They were called Code-Talkers. I had seen the special on the History Channel and thought it was great. I made a comment in the thread and by mistake called them Code-Breakers and was called an idiot by a poster, who happened to be of Native American decent, with no reason why. I didn't catch my mistake until much latter.

Although it bothered me I never took the time to explain my mistake and just let it go. The problem now is how will this poster view my input? Also, how do I now view that posters input? The big difference in posting on a message board and talking to someone face to face is you don't see the immediate response or physical reactions.

Had we had this same conversation in person it probably would have turned out different. I probably would have seen her reaction and caught my mistake, and she probably would not have had the nerve to call me an idiot and instead corrected my mistake.

Point is, good communication on a message board takes a bit more effort on the part of everyone as well as being more lenient. If you don't understand why a poster responded they way they did you should just ask. But in the end does this mistake affect my credibility with anyone else but that poster? No!

Spelling and Punctuation
I know some readers/posters that love to point out spelling mistakes. Some have even said they don't put any creditability behind a poster that can't spell. Give me a brake! You know they say that correcting the spelling of a poster, just to be a pain, is the reaction of a poster with nothing intelligent to say.

[SGT T.]

The short answer to your question of does it matter would be, in my opinion, no. People typicly do not read postings in forums and view them to be fact. They are opinion. There seems to be an issue in todays media dominated society of what is fact and what is fiction, and it might be bleeding over just a bit into the mainstream of society. Just look at these boards. If you are taking what people in here are saying as fact, then you are going to have a very strange vision of the world. Not that that's a bad thing, at least, in my opinion...

[Detector]

Very true SGT T. Isn't it a bit ironic that the news paper media would question how valid written text might be? Don't get me wrong I completely understand why people, including the media, feel you can't take a message board serious, I'm just trying find search for the answer. If there is one.

I think the BIGGEST issue is
Potential for Abuse
There is no doubt the potential for abusing ones ability to hind behind a moniker(made up name) exists. Many boards address this issue with assigned moderators that monitor posters for abuse. DodgeBoard addresses this issue a bit differently. We(the members) realize it is our responsibility to keep our neighborhood clean if we care about others taking our posts seriously. There have been and will be times when a poster take offense to another posters remarks. It is the responsibility for fellow posters to call potential abuse to the carpet. We all have bad days and getting to know our community can be a great help in comforting a fellow poster.

[Bubba]

I really don't think it makes a difference at all. My view is....what's in a name? It is the person and their viewpoint and input that matters. I have known you as Detector for a year here and awhile on dct before that. It has been since the newspaper article came out that I found out you were Terry Adams, I don't know Terry Adams...or do I? If Terry Adams is Detector and I know Detector, maybe I do know Terry Adams after all.

I am pretty sure that if a person wanted to dig and put forth a little effort, that everybody on here knows the somebody who knows somebody else that you would be able to find out the real name of just about anybody on the board, if you wanted to take the time and effort.

I think that the anonymity could actually be a plus. It helps those that are somewhat shy in real life put on a little bolder persona and write things under their handle that they wouldn't ever say in real life. In other words, the true feelings, thoughts and emotions come out a little easier when you have that thin layer of anonyimity.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Detector

Very true SGT T. Isn't it a bit ironic that the news paper media would question how valid written text might be? Don't get me wrong I completely understand why people, including the media, feel you can't take a message board serious, I'm just trying find search for the answer. If there is one.

I think the media should take a message board serious as in what are the true feelings of several individuals about a certain topic or event. It is, in my opinion kinda like taking an opinion poll. The media does that all the time. They ask people how they feel about a certain topic and tally up the numbers. Where do you think they get G.W. Bush's approval ratings. They call up a random list of people and ask them what they think. Guess what else...that poll is anonymous!


I would compare this message board to a coffee shop in the real world where people sit around and discuss things while drinking a cup of coffee. Some of it is gossip, some of it is fact, some of it is entertaining. There is a little bit of everything.

[Tee]

The corporation I work for surveys all of it's employees about every 6 months. It is an anonymous survey, of course. Why do they do this? They want honest, candid answers, free from grandstanding as one might do to make themselves look good if their identity was known, and free from fear of reprisal if a person says something negative.

We vote anonymously for elected officials.

Anonymity is only despised by those in the spotlight as a method of pre-discounting honest opinions of their performance.

Obviously, there is a difference between opinions and facts. Surveys aren't factual, community meetings aren't factual, and votes aren't factual, nor are any of them signed. Most of the time, what you find on message boards is opinions. Intelligent people know that. Good leaders value opinions more than fact because it is in part, a representation of how their performances is perceived. It's perception that gets them re-elected, not facts. You can be the greatest leader ever, but if perception is bad, you're done for.

If they can understand the perception of an important issue or elected official, they will then have the information to try and change that perception. It has nothing to do with fact. All of our leaders should welcome our anonymous opinions if it gives them a tally, in part to change public perception.


signed,
Tim Trent

Okay, did signing my name make this more credible? NO!

[lurker]

In the early days, most (if not all) towns had a post where people would hang (POST) paper notices announcing events, news, obituaries and opinions. Some were signed, others weren't. If someone wanted to stand above the crowd they'd stand on a soapbox and speak their minds to whoever would listen.

We aren't doing anything new; we are simply using a new tool.

To the nay-sayers I say: "Get over it!"

[Detector]

We aren't doing anything new; we are simply using a new tool.

I have wondered how the media plans to deal with the "new tools" of the future. I see most small town papers destine to go the way of the Dodo.

Today most local news papers spend enormous amounts of time and energy just to place a piece of paper in the hands of locals. In fact I'd venture a guess they make very little profit, if any, off the 25 cent paper. I think the majority of income that keeps them in business would be the income from advertisers.

Enter the 21st century. I see the future of news papers being read from a tablet PC. We already have the technology and even some forward looking media's using it. I can simply subscribe, through my tablet PC, for any daily news paper I prefer. Whats to stop a big time news media from taking the local business? Nothing.

What a lot of people don't realize is that this new technology differs greatly from the quint old paper media in that subscribers can not only read the news, but comment on it as well, and that comment be read by the other subscribers. Hum... sounds a lot like a message board doesn't it!

Global networking is here. That means the FOX network could, potentially, report Dodge City local news just as well as a local news paper. Freelance reporting allows any reporter to obtain local news from virtually anywhere and send it in instantly.

One word you seldom see on a message board, with the exception of posting lawyers, that you see often in others media is "Alleged." Papers are bound by laws which are not applied to a message board. I believe this is why most news media does not like the message board concept.

I think the popular misconception is that news media is obligated to report the news good or bad. I'm not aware of any code that obligates the paper to report anything other than what they want. As with any other business their only obligation is to their subscribers. We bitch about people making comments about the legitimacy of our posts without subscribing to our board, yet we expect the local news media to be concerned about our comments without subscribing. If you really care to voice an opinion about the local paper, thats taken seriously, then subscribe or better yet become an advertiser and voice your opinion.

Like the smoking ban, to think the news media has an obligation to do anything other than whats in their best interest is asinine. If you don't like what the paper prints then don't read it.

[lurker]

The print media's integration into the web hasn't been very friendly to the netizen. They still think "print" and are trying to maintain their old ideas:

• Insert ='s popup
• Color Ad ='s "Banner Blindness"

Google's got it figured out. Minimal intrusion into the "internet experience" with maximum corelation.

I prefer the HutchNews and use their information often; mostly because they don't require registration (allowing casual visitors the freedom to read their pages) AND because their site is cleaner than most.

The Globe restricts readership to registered browsers. That eliminates message board links to them because I don't expect every viewer to register with them in order to view the Globe as a/my source of information.

The Eagle uses a design common to alot of other newspapers. It's extremely cluttered and has several links on every page that links to the same article. A piss-poor design with a popup on every link.

[K C Muffin]

Originally Posted by Bubba

It helps those that are somewhat shy in real life

That's me!!!!!