Pseudonyms for unpopular advocacy?
Someone recently applied and asked for a pseudonym, because he advocates for X, which is a very unpopular thing to do. If it were known that he were an X advocate, then his career, helping people with Y, would be threatened. Therefore, we should give him a pseudonym.
Is this an adequate reason to give him a pseudonym? Suppose that X is white supremacy, holocaust denial, pedophilia, terrorism, or hardcore repressive Stalinism. If we give an X advocate a pseudonym just because he is an X advocate, we are enabling him to continue his X advocacy secretly.
I can imagine situation in which we might want to give an X advocate a pseudonym–for example, a national of any repressive regime who will write about that regime. So matters are not so clear, perhaps. Does the situation force us to decide which kinds of advocacy we shall support with pseudonyms? That sounds very difficult to justify, given our neutrality policy. Should we conclude that no pseudonyms may be given out on grounds that someone is an advocate of a particular view?
What do you think?
I’m just waking up from a needed nap (not a metaphor), so please bear with me. At a glance I would support some pseudonyms for people who are likely to have their lives threatened because of views that are life-supporting. I’m an advocate and student of Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication [check him out on YouTube!] and it seems clear a lot of the time that some views are life-supporting and some are not. Racism is not inherently life-supporting and neither is torture. Advocating for freedom for Tibet I would view as life-supporting.
I do not believe that complete neutrality is the best course. Human beings matter. If you support torture, there are some people who might like to avoid you.
I’m not sure I would offer a pseudonym because someone’s career may be on the line, but, I just woke up (maybe a metaphor).
Comment by Charlie Hicks-Moore — September 8, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
I believe the answer to the question of pseudonyms for advocacy is straightforward: no advocacy means no need for pseudonymity.
A well written article does not advocate, it simply informs. Adding factual information to an article does not mean an author supports or opposes the information added, it simply means the author knows about it.
Advocacy is another matter though. Advocacy goes beyond informing the reader. Advocacy seeks to convince the reader. Articles that advocate a particular view are inherently biased. As such they cannot be trusted to convey an accurate account of the topic discussed.
In my view, if an author requests anonymity becase he or she intends to advocate, the quality of the contribition is immediately suspect. Putting real names against contributions is Citizendium’s safeguard against unreliable material. This is an important distinction between Citizendium and Wikipedia I believe should be vigerously defended.
Comment by David Moss — September 8, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
I would question, certainly in the early state of this encyclopaedia, why you would want someone who feels that what they have to say puts them in danger and what such controversial information could be. If the information conforms to the sourcing guidelines of no original research, then someone else can put this information up. If they feel editing on their particular topic will be a threat, then they can edit elsewhere.
Can anybody else make the contribution: surely so. In allowing anonymity, you allow egotism and you allow paranoia. It is the path to allowing the wrong things to happen for the wrong reasons - which is The Other Place.
Comment by Ian Spencer — September 9, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
I oppose pseudonyms, other than in very specific well-argued cases which convince at least two senior CZ staff. I do not think we can set rules in advance, because their use should be a major exception to all other rules….
Comment by Martin Baldwin-Edwards — September 11, 2007 @ 3:54 am
David Moss is mostly correct - advocacy does not belong on Citizendium. However, there are cases where there can be significant negative consequences for merely reporting the truth, or even questioning conventional wisdom. One does not need to be an advocate for Armenians or Kurds to get in trouble with the Turkish government, one merely needs to report the truth about the Turkish government’s actions towards Armenians and Kurds. Closer to home, questioning certain political dogmas, while not very likely to lead to arrest, may have negative consequences for one’s career. Look at the trouble Larry Summers got into for merely venturing as a question of whether men and women have different distributions of intelligence (something which the psychometric literature supports - the average IQ of men and women appear to be equal, but the standard deviation appears to be a little larger for men).
Perhaps, if someone requires anonymity, they could find a “sponsor”, who they would give information to, who would then put it up in his own name, noting that he had been provided the information by someone who wished to remain anonymous. The sponsor would of course have the power to modify or not post the information. The sponsor would be responsible for the information, particularly for ensuring that it meets CZ standards.
Comment by Anthony — September 12, 2007 @ 8:37 am
I think David Moss has it right. The desire to advocate X — here — is disqualifying, so the question of a pseudonym becomes moot.
Comment by Mark Grannis — September 13, 2007 @ 5:25 am
Well, you’ve disabled anonymous edits to talk pages, so at this point there’s not much of a “pressure valve” for people to leave a comment of any sort without identifying themselves. I think the “sponsor” idea would capture the necessary flexibility, perhaps by some simple email convention (e.g. every article has an associated “you can also send comments to x@y.org”).
Comment by Peter S Magnusson — September 14, 2007 @ 7:17 am
The sponsor idea is a good one, but the person with the controversial views would have to really trust the sponsor. I can forsee major problems with that in a net environment where not everyone may be acting altruistically. Of course I am beyond reproach in this area !
Some years ago I offered such a sponsorship system in the political sphere. I hosted one of the first political websites from the mid 90s to 2000. I provided anonymity to some of the authors, clearly stating at the end of the article that I had converted the material to HTML on behalf of an anonymous author. The result was that I myself became a target for the hatred that resulted from the material, even though I personally despised much of the content.
The system worked on my site because of my personal reputation, and because I was able to withstand concerted campaigns to have the material removed. My employer used to get at least a couple of letters a month demanding I be dismissed from my job back then, and I required an unlisted telephone number to protect my family from abuse. Sponsorship of controversial material may involve more committment than a sponsor may initially realise.
That being said, there are doubtlessly many people throughout the world who are in a position to sponsor controversial material without fear of the consequences. I would certainly volunteer to act as a sponsor for controversial material.
The only way to find out if this system will work is to try it.
Comment by David Moss — September 15, 2007 @ 5:41 pm