Having said that, the cloak of anonymity tends to add more heat to a discussion than light. For possibly the same reason the Klan wore hoods. I really don’t like anonymity but it’s better than saying nothing in the name of risk-avoidance. Or is it? Without it, I wouldn’t be typing this minute (and without the savagry as expressed by the klan, too)

I don’t have a major beef with people for choosing to publish anonymously or pseudonymously. If that’s all Eye on Winer wants to share about himself (or herself), the audience can judge that accordingly. He asked why some people take him less seriously because he’s using a pseudonym; I tried to answer as one of those people.

But the notion that no one knows enough to judge you is farcical. I know the names of four people who’ve contributed to sites like this one over the years, in spite of their efforts to stay private. (I’m not referring to Eye.)

In all four cases, there’s a lot of information about them floating around the web — certainly enough to judge the merits of the criticisms they make related to technology.

In my own case, I’m not a public figure, or at most an extremely minor one. Has that stopped you from judging my position to comment on this subject?

I would be more interested to hear what Powel had to back up his claim with than Franken, but if Franken could support his accusation it would be given equal weight in my mind. Just because Franken is a partisan schmuck doesn’t make him wrong.

There are, of course, certain types of statements that will be believed or not based on who is saying them. For example, if I say “Software Package X is the best one on the market right now.” It matters who I am so the statement can be put in context. If I say “Software Package X is able to do Y” it doesn’t matter at all who I am because what I’m saying is either true or false. Opinion/Fact issues roughly coincide, but not all opinions lose validity based on their author.

In fact, if someone says “Software Package X is the best program on the market because it does A, B, and C” then my identity doesn’t really matter any more because I’m quantifying my statement and giving the reader a chance to judge for herself.

But the bottom line is that I wouldn’t have any problem not being pseudonymous/anonymous if #2 and #3 weren’t so well documented and widespread.

Oh, and I’m not really trying to convince anyone to change their mind about Dave… I realize that’s not going to happen based on my postings whether I use my name or not. Dave’s followers are, by and large, rabid and blind to anything contradicting his awe-inspiring genius.

No one treats all information equally regardless of source. It would be a terrible way to go through life, because there’s so much BS to wade through.

On this weblog entry, you pointed out that an “anonymous user” of Wikipedia made an accusation about this site. Why point out his anonymity if its irrelevant?

If they back them up with more information than that? Then I judge on that. It’s really easy.

Al Franken: “President Bush should be impeached.”

Colin Powell: “President Bush should be impeached.”

Same information, two sources. Do you give them equal weight?

Sounds like a personal failing. If you really have to base your opinions of something on who is talking and not what they’re talking about, you might need an intellectual tune up.

Because you have absolutely nothing to lose by being wrong, malicious, or unfair. Your reputation will not be harmed by anything you say, so those of us who risk our standing in the community with every dumb thing we write take you less seriously.

I wish that pseudonymous and anonymous people would stop being so defensive about it. You want to speak freely without consequence. There are times that freedom’s great — I love what Misanthropic Bitch has done with it — but most of the time, it’s just a great way to nurture your inner asshole.