Anonymity when posting on food and wine boards

[Michael Ruhlman]

Yesterday Russ Parsons wrote:

"this is the problem with the whole blind posting thing. i post under my own name because my momma taught me not to say anything behind someone's back that i wouldn't say to their face. this isn't true of all of our "nom-ed" posters: there are plenty of them, like fat guy, bux, pan, etc., who are very clear about their identities and, therefore, there special interests and potential conflicts thereof."

Egullet has proven to be influential in the food community. The heated debate of a chef memoir, a restaurant critic's methods, the foie gras controversy in, of all places, Chicago, have influenced national coverage of these issues. The seriousness of intent, the intelligence of the dialogue, from highbrow to comical, and the general good will of the site have lured a wide range of voices, from outside the professional food community and inside.

It’s become influential enough that I wonder if its moderators ought to begin functioning a little more like conventional media editors in how they manage information, and its posters ought to behave more like contributors to conventional media.

There’s a reason why newspapers and magazines don’t allow anonymous contributors. Egullet should consider requiring all contributors to file under their actual names.

This post was elicited by the psaltis thread, and while where you stand on the subject is not important, its example is. If a the pro-Psaltis poster called Rocketman is, say, a relative or a close friend, his words mean something different to the reader than were he, say, a horticulturist in north carolina who happened to be fascinated by the chef world.

The same burdens should fall on the moderators. I had a post removed from that thread, though it was not mean, untrue, profane and was on the subject. I was offered no explanation and don't know who did it. If one or two people are able to censor comments by fiat, and anonymously, at that, this too will undermine the credibility of this site.

As more and more people in the food world watch the dialogues on eGullet, the people who run egullet and the people who post on it must give up anonymity and accept the responsibility of accountability. Otherwise this section of the eGullet site, arguably one of it’s most important, will become irrelevant.

This is far too serious for a Friday afternoon post, but there it is. I’d love hear anyone who would make a case in favor of maintaining anonymity.

[Carrot Top]

I am in full agreement with your points.

[russ parsons]

obviously, i agree, too. anonymity should not be a shield to hide behind while throwing rocks at others.

[jbonne]

what Russ said. those who feel like casting anonymous vitriol into the void of the Internet are welcome to go back to scribbling it on bathroom walls.

[WolfChef]

Well put Michael.

[Mallet]

I wonder what the numbers are for anymous members in eGullet? From a quick survey on "Today's Active Topics" I am guessing about a 5:1 ratio of anonymnous (no first AND last time in signature or username, haven't checked all the member profiles though) users.

One possible feature of maintaining anonymity is that it tends to level the playing field when there are disagreements.

[therese]

Here's a vote in favor of anonymity, albeit a selfish one.

I'm not professionally associated with food in any way---my interest is personal and essentially recreational. Colleagues and friends who do not share this interest are unaware of it, and I'd like to keep it that way.

[munchymom]

I don't post with my real name anywhere on the Internet because I am concerned (well, maybe paranoid) about privacy. I don't want to post a photo of my kitchen or my three-year-old child, with my real name underneath it, so that J. Random Wacko can look me up on Google Maps and come to my house. If I were forced to use my full name on eG, I would get a new username and post nothing that would give a clue to my location, my age or family status - which, on a board where I might want to post about what my kid's eating or what restaurant I went to last night, would limit my participation greatly. I'd still read here but I don't think I'd bother to be a participating member.

[Jonathan Day]

The same burdens should fall on the moderators.  I had a post removed from that thread, though it was not mean, untrue, profane and was on the subject.  I was offered no explanation and don't know who did it.  If one or two people are able to censor comments by fiat, and anonymously, at that, this too will undermine the credibility of this site.

←

Michael, you are right. Our hosts and managers are supposed to send a PM to any member whose post is deleted, explaining why it was deleted. Sometimes this step gets skipped, e.g. when a post is completely blank or when it simply quotes another post. Occasionally we get behind, and the PM doesn't get sent until some time after the post is deleted. The system keeps a log, by the way, so that we can almost always find out who deleted a post. But if a substantive post of yours is deleted, and you aren't informed who did it or why, we want to know about that.

I'll respond separately on the anonymity issue.

[therese]

I don't post with my real name anywhere on the Internet because I am concerned (well, maybe paranoid) about privacy.  I don't want to post a photo of my kitchen or my three-year-old child, with my real name underneath it, so that J. Random Wacko can look me up on Google Maps and come to my house.  If I were forced to use my full name on eG, I would get a new username and post nothing that would give a clue to my location, my age or family status - which, on a board where I might want to post about what my kid's eating or what restaurant I went to last night, would limit my participation greatly.  I'd still read here but I don't think I'd bother to be a participating member.

←

I agree with munchymom's points re privacy. I won't even post pictures of my children or family members here, though I have posted pictures of my kitchen on the assumption that anybody who recognizes it already knows me.

My full name happens to be very distinctive, so even more of a problem from a privacy point of view.

[GordonCooks]

I'm not sure naming names would solve anything. Cooks isn’t my real last name, but do to my willingness to provide useful information that is accurate or helpful to others, it may as well be. Names do not build credibility in web forums rather historical participation (positive or negative). The name is merely a method to identify a particular individual or catagory of information

edit sp

Edited November 11, 2005 by GordonCooks (log)

[Jonathan Day]

Let me ask a question: suppose the North Southport Grill opens in a big city (NYC, London, Chicago). An eGullet member whose real name is Susan Smith dines there and posts a negative comment on the place. Let's further suppose that Susan is not in any way a public figure.

Does it make any difference whether she posts as Susan Smith, S Smith or TreeHugger? Whitepages.com lists 244 names under "S Smith" and 9 matching "Susan Smith", in New York, New York. Where does the additional accountability come from?

[Michael Ruhlman]

names may not build credibility but they do ensure that people are accountable for what they say.

[GordonCooks]

To a degree - but personally speaking, information given by an unknown source is suspect. And accountability can always be tempered by the penalty suffered.

[SuzySushi]

I agree with munchymom and therese about wanting to preserve my personal anonymity on a public message board.

I also feel anonymity is important at eGullet to distinguish between my professional persona (as a market researcher/analyst writing about the food industry) and my private opinions. If there's any hint of a conflict of interest, I either avoid posting in that topic, or state my professional capacity up front.

[Marlene]

Although I was not the one who deleted Michael's post, when he PM'd me, I did offer him an explanation, which he appeared to have accepted at the time.

To address the issue of being annonymous. I'm not sure if it's the issue of names or the issue of intent that we are trying to get to here. As Michael points out, it is possible that knowing who someone is may or may not change the context.

However, what the real question seems to be, is what is the intent of the person posting. To defend, to criticize to agree with? And when we know the intent, we want to know why. Knowing the person's name isn't always going to give you the why.

There are people on this board who currently post under their own names. I've seen them pursue what seems to be a personal agenda post after post. Knowing their name still doesnt' help me understand why.

[winesonoma]

names may not build credibility but they do ensure that people are accountable for what they say.

←

It all comes down to are you a poster or a shill? Some anonymous posts lead me to believe that there is a vested interest that is not being disclosed. If I tout a restaurant or a winery and am associated with it I will let you know. If I know the chef or winemaker I will let you know that also. It does a disservice to the rest of us if you don't disclose affiliations in advance. I would never ask someone to out themselves. But at least let us know if you have a vested interest.

[jgm]

I don't have strong feelings either way on the anonymity issue. I do post anonymously, mainly because when I first joined eGullet, I didn't know much about it and what kind of people were associated with it. I had Googled something about cooking, and an eGullet post came up. I'm not sure what prompted me to actually join; I just remember I was in a hurry and couldn't think of anything interesting to use as a screen name, so I just put in my initials. It seemed to be an unpretentious way to go.

I am not a professional in the food industry, and never have been, and quite truthfully, I can't imagine why anyone would care what my name is. But like another post indicated, I have a fairly unusual name, and it would easily be traceable.

In my past is an abusive relationship, and although I don't allow myself to live in fear, or allow that person to place boundaries on my life, I also don't put my name and face "out there" unless there's good reason to. I have sent personal e-mails to a few eG members for one reason or another, and I make no effort to hide my identity in that instance.

If any eGullet member wants to know who I am, I would reveal that information if I thought there were a valid reason for doing so.

[GordonCooks]

I agree with munchymom and therese about wanting to preserve my personal anonymity on a public message board.

I also feel anonymity is important at eGullet to distinguish between my professional persona (as a market researcher/analyst writing about the food industry) and my private opinions. If there's any hint of a conflict of interest, I either avoid posting in that topic, or state my professional capacity up front.

←

Well...............I almost disagree with that. Given that this forum is topical and related to your current livelihood - anonymity may not be appropriate. Not everyone would abide by your admirable guidelines.

Edited November 11, 2005 by GordonCooks (log)

[Katie Nell]

I agree with munchymom and therese as well. It's not a matter of remaining anonymous to argue and rant; it's purely a safety mechanism. Don't you people ever watch CSI Miami or Law and Order SVU?!? While those are usually extreme cases, identity theft, harassment, etc. can happen to anyone!

[carswell]

Is it safe to assume that you, Russ and jbonne are comfortable with the "celebrity" status that your being published authors confers? It's not something I crave in the slightest; I'm not in this for the glory or the perks. In fact, at one point I stopped posting on Chowhound because I was profoundly uncomfortable with my online persona being referred to as a "star," with requests being made for the best "Carswellian bistro," etc.

As someone whose name is unique in Montreal, Canada and possibly the world, I'm instantly identifiable. I'm also a freelancer and frequently discuss — always fairly, sometimes critically — one of my clients on various online fora. If I were to post the criticisms under my real name, the client would know it was I who wrote them and would probably stop sending me contracts. It's why I don't write letters to the editor of local papers critical of, say, major banks, though god knows I have a lot to say after seeing from the inside how they work and what their goals are. If I post a critical or glowing review of a restaurant, the staff is probably going to recognize my name the next time I call to make a reservation (call display doesn't do pseudonyms), which, in turn, may prejudice how they treat me.

Also, I know of two women and one man who have been stalked as a result of their participation in online discussion groups. One of them even had to take out a restraining order.

And besides, is someone like me (with a "paper trail" of nearly 1,400 posts on eG and hundreds, if not more, on Chowhound) or tommy (14,000+ eG posts and counting) really that anonymous? Haven't we earned a kind of street cred?

All of which is to say I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be.

Edited November 11, 2005 by carswell (log)

[Jonathan Day]

Something like the following language has been part of our member agreement for as long as I can remember:

We strongly encourage you to use your real name either as your username or in your signature line.

.

Every member of the staff -- hosts, managers, specialists -- is required to disclose their name, either by changing an anonymous screen name or putting their name in the signature line, as Fat Guy does. We hope this sets an example for our members.

We balance the encouragement to use real names with

In the event you feel your employment or livelihood would be threatened by public disclosure of your name, you may participate anonymously on the public message boards. You must, however, provide your real, full name and verifiable contact information to the site administrators -- and that information will be handled in accordance with our privacy policy.

And we add,

In addition, if we determine that you are using your anonymity as a sword rather than a shield, for example by harassment and disruption of the community, we will rescind it, and suspend or otherwise act against your account.

New members, as they register, are required to provide a verifiable name and telephone number, and we check these; this data is maintained in confidence. So a member who is anonymous to the public is usually not anonymous to the management.

At the same time, we are alive to privacy, harassment and stalking concerns. So the Member Agreement continues

We urge you to be circumspect about posting details of your personal life and comings-and-goings on the message boards, whether you use your real name or not. Please bear in mind that anybody with Internet access can read most of our boards, and that no matter how carefully we monitor the registration process we cannot prevent every instance of misuse.

Privacy matters to our members, as a number of posters on this thread have suggested. If we forced everyone to disclose their names, we'd lose a number of interesting posts from cooks and waitstaff, for example, who might fear dismissal if they commented on their employer's restaurant.

Incidentally, one corollary of this policy is that we won't allow posts to the effect that, "Your argument has no worth until you tell us your name." This kind of language violates the harassment provisions of the Member Agreement, and we will tend to delete it when it appears in the forums.

[Hest88]

As someone who has visited a whole lot of forums in my time, I would really argue against any effort to force individual contributors to post with their real names. It is too easily to look someone up on the Internet, and too easy for one's private interests and Internet discourses to be found by one's real life acquaintances. Plus, given the sometimes heated exchanges on the Internet, it makes it too easy for an online enemy to do real life damage.

[Carrot Top]

Nobody can finally ever really hope to know anothers true intent (sometimes even if you are married to them). Sometimes we don't even have full knowledge of our own true intent unless we take the time to be contemplative about ourselves and the ways we act and the things we desire.

The idea of providing your name when posting opinion on a subject in a public place seems to me to be one way of embracing professionalism in the act of posting your opinion. It is one step towards creating credibility - not a full step, that is for sure, but it is a good-will gesture towards the attainment of it.

This media *is* very different from print media. Who knows if it would ultimately be productive or useful or not?

I like the idea because it sets a firmer tone of reality upon what can sometimes seem to be a very flaky place: cyberspace.

Does anyone know of any websites with boards where real names *are* required?

And if so, *is* there a greater level of accountability and/or credibility attached to the site in terms of reputation and content?

[Anna N]

When I first joined, this board was not nearly as hospitable as it has become. I wanted an opportunity to explore the community before I revealed much about myself. Once I determined that there was a certain level of comfort, I revealed my identity. Still, I cannot imagine why someone who wants to ask how to cook a roast or where to find good vanilla needs to reveal much about themselves. Only when the subject becomes controversial does it seem to me that anonymity is a problem. Too bad we can't restrict some threads to "participation allowed only with full disclosure".