Anonymity when posting on food and wine boards

[Fat Guy]

The worst was when our member "Oedipus" found out that our member "Jocasta" really was his mother, causing an immediate shutdown of the Athens & Sparta forum.

[JohnL]

This has been an interesting thead to read through. I tend to agree and prefer to see people's real names. It tends to make for more interesting discussions frankly, when I can take into consideration not only people's viewpoint's, but also their backgrounds, if relevant to the subject at hand.

Having said that, I can also appreciate the needs of those who do prefer anonymity for safety or work/privacy issues.

That leads to a most interesting comment at the bottom of Michael's last post,

"I’ve never argued that people should be forced to reveal themselves (this stalking issue is unnerving), but perhaps there are some instances in which managemnt might require people to use real names. Those who for whatever reasons wish or need to maintain anonymity would have to watch from the sidelines in those rare instances. Anonymity comes with a price too."

I think this is something worth discussing. The Psaltis thread for instance could have been deemed, 'no anonymous posting allowed', based on the content. When you are discussing a person or restaurant and the issue is controversial, as in this instance, I don't think it is fair to comment anonymously, and to hide behind that wall of protection. In this scenario, who you are does become relevant, depending on what you are saying, and if  in fact, you are a shill, or close friend of the person under fire, or enemy or whatever. Full disclosure is the only fair thing.

So, maybe it could be looked at on a case by case, thread by thread basis, as needed.

And I do agree with those who have said that posting under your own name, tends to raise the level of discussion, keeps it more professional, or at least makes people think twice before posting something inflammatory.

Pam

←

I would agree somewhat with the last statement. I belive that posting under one's real name does encourage a bit more thought before hitting the send button and it does lend itself to more civility.

It is interesting how the "industry/media professionals" seem to line up in favor of full disclosure.

(Ruhlman, Sheraton et al).

These are people who thrive on being "known." They are also paid for it. Then there are the rest of us. Many opt to remain anonymous (though the staff at eGullet have real names and e-mail addresses etc) for various reasons, some valid some a bit shady.

One potential problem:

Search engines like Google etc can pick up your name from threads on some web sites (the experts here at eGullet can probably elaborate). A post can then appear out of context under one's name. There is no way to "explain" or provide that context--hard enough as it is to correct a credit report--once your thought is out on the net it is there forever. Keep in mind these forums are discussions they are casual in nature and ongoing. also someone else may include your name in a post and that can appear as well.

This, of course can happen to Ruhlman and Sheraton etc, however they have platforms where they can deal with and respond to issues they have access to mass media outlets-- most people know who they are and are aware of their credentials.

One must also realize that anonymity comes with a trade off--that is the content of the post should draw more skepticism.

I always abide by what some insightful person (could be Shakespeare) counseled:

"Trust the Tale not the Teller."

That is the content and the quality of the content is more important than the author and their motivation or agenda etc.

That is, a post that is thoughtful and well written will carry more weight or gravitas than a nasty or innuendo laden one.

Here at eGullet, (and other sites) posts that make statements that are dubiously or poorly supported are responded to fairly quickly--posts are challenged. Anyone who is out and out fraudulent will likely be "caught" by other posters or in some cases, by the folks who run the site.

In the end, I can see a case for both sides of the issue.

I do come out in favor of choice--that is people can determine the level of anonymity they are comfortable with for their own reasons.

Basically, this is an ongoing discussion of issues--people come and go--some are "celebrities" some are just everyday people.

[Fat Guy]

John, I think that's an even-handed summary of the issues.

One thing I'd add is that, while everybody has to make the choice regarding how much privacy to maintain, and while everybody else has to choose how much weight to assign to a given member's posts, we seek to avoid endless discussion of such matters on topics that are supposed to be about food and related issues. Real name, pseudonym, etc., these things should all speak for themselves.

And one thing I'd correct is the statement that "industry/media professionals" line up in favor of full disclosure. I would say that old-media professionals line up in favor of full disclosure, whereas those media professionals with serious involvement in new media are not so sanguine about it. And certainly I don't think the industry professionals -- as in people who actually work in the food business as opposed to write about it -- are unanimous on this point. Many of them would simply not post here, for fear of various forms of reprisal, if required to use a real name.

[JohnL]

John, I think that's an even-handed summary of the issues.

One thing I'd add is that, while everybody has to make the choice regarding how much privacy to maintain, and while everybody else has to choose how much weight to assign to a given member's posts, we seek to avoid endless discussion of such matters on topics that are supposed to be about food and related issues. Real name, pseudonym, etc., these things should all speak for themselves.

And one thing I'd correct is the statement that "industry/media professionals" line up in favor of full disclosure. I would say that old-media professionals line up in favor of full disclosure, whereas those media professionals with serious involvement in new media are not so sanguine about it. And certainly I don't think the industry professionals -- as in people who actually work in the food business as opposed to write about it -- are unanimous on this point. Many of them would simply not post here, for fear of various forms of reprisal, if required to use a real name.

←

Talk about anonymity! For some reason my post doesn't appear in the thread!

Anyway, I think the best aspect of what goes on here are the dynamics.

These threads reflect a much wider range of thinking and opinion than one would encounter anywhere else. They are also much more "organic" than other media--that is they are the closest to a very large discussion that is ongoing (living and breathing).

People come and go etc.

There are regular posters here whom I respect for their thoughts and ideas I look for their posts and enjoy their points of view.

I do not know many of them--their real names--what they do for a living etc. Some I do--they have chosen to reveal that. it is however, the quality of their opinions that is most important.

Nowhere else is one going to find views and opinion from waitstaff, cooks, chefs, managers, critics, writers, serious "gourmets" "foodies" "connoisseurs" winemakers, wine drinkers, and just plain everyday people who enjoy eating and drinking (living basically).

We all have access to each other.

Then there's the more mundane--news of a new restaurant worth visiting before the reviews appear etc. somebody finds a really good place for fried oysters that may never be reviewed in the media.

There's some entertainment too-where else are we going to see a "feud" among highly respected celebrities played out in almost real time--and maybe even jump in ourselves!?

( I thought Mr Mariani was offering to bury the hatchet --not in Ruhlman's back either).

Anyway--anonymity is neither good nor bad it is simply what it is.

It is really the thought that counts.

[Bux]

And on the anonymity question: after over a decade of active participation using my real name on listservs and other online fora, I decided to transform my name in a devious manner, producing an eGullet handle that would utterly hide my true moniker to most and reveal it only to those who can figure out the complex two-step code. (Hint: think about capital letters and a single space.)

←

For years I've confused you with Chrisa Mirault.

[Chris Amirault]

Bux, have you been talking about me to that chatterbox Bob Woodward?

[gruyere]

I post anonymously for personal reasons. I run my own business in a professional manner, employing several hundred persons within a conservative industry environment. Likewise I head up certain charities. In my home town of Montreal my name is far from a household word, but it is quite unique and has an unusual spelling as a result of its British/French heritage in the Channel Islands. Under my real name and with the incredible power of search tools there exists the distinct possibility that my posts will be viewed by persons with whom I would prefer to maintain my privacy. Additionally and unlike many industry related professionals I may not have the opportunity to defend my position to those who might want to use it for other than its intended purposes.

I, the person who runs my business, have a stiff upper lip and operate in a busy, efficient manner. Most of the people in my office wouldn’t say shit if their mouth was full of it. I, the person who takes great pleasure in spending a fall Sunday afternoon tending to his veal stock is also the one who follows Bourdain’s instructions to “take that slab of beef out of the fridge at least an hour before and fuck the department of health.” That same person spends hours planning the next restaurant visits, especially to France, Spain and Italy. The latter person is more relaxed and is becoming more and more how I see myself. It is certainly my eGullet persona. Although I take my interest in food, restaurants and travel very seriously my participation in these forums is strictly recreational. I have no axe to grind and have never posted anything other than my honest assessment of a situation or issue. My disclosing my identity to this forum would provide absolutely no benefit to eG but it would seriously limit my input for the reasons stated above.

I recognise that this debate has been percolating in one form or another for some time now. I believe it has boiled to the surface because certain of the foodie elite, particularly the NYC foodie elite got their tits in a wringer over comments that DP made in his recent book. They didn’t agree with much of what he said and generated a somewhat herd mentality of the ‘establishment’ to gun him down because he was critical of some their untouchable friends. They have made compelling and eloquent arguments to support their position. Furthermore, they believe that at least one poster on the other side of the debate has a vested interest and should disclose his/her identity.

Like the vast majority of eGulleters I do not personally know any of the characters involved but found the book quite entertaining, although possibly falling short of a Pulitzer nomination. It has not in anyway altered the respect I have for Keller or any of the others referenced in the book nor has it influenced my use of the FLC or Bouchon, two works for which I have immense respect. The inertia that surrounds all of the other positive commentary about TK from a myriad of sources is simply too great. The elite have taken themselves too seriously and overestimated their own importance.

There is now a spoiled brat mentality that pervades this debate maintaining the position that eGullet or at least certain forums within eGullet are meant for the well known or at least somewhat well know contributors and therefore require an identifiable right of passage. This has not been said in as many words but the implication is consistent with recent input.

I think it is extremely important to understand that there is a very distinct difference between those who consider eGullet as an extension of their professional life and those of us who simply participate because of our passion for its subject matter (and that does not imply that the former group is not at least as passionate). However I do respect the point that those with serious credentials and certainly those with a stake in the debate can be considered to have a responsibility of disclosure.

On a final point, suggesting that it makes sense to encourage (as opposed to requiring) posters to do so under their given name is a futile exercise. If someone is going to take an irresponsible approach to their contributions they will find a way to do so under one disguise or another. Wonderful place that it is, I believe this is very much the exception on eGullet.

Edited November 17, 2005 by gruyere (log)

[Oceangroveguy]

What Gruyere said.

In spades.

On all points.

[Pan]

[...]There is now a spoiled brat mentality that pervades this debate maintaining the position that eGullet or at least certain forums within eGullet are meant for the well known or at least somewhat well know contributors and therefore require an identifiable right of passage.  This has not been said in as many words but the implication is consistent with recent input.[...]

←

I genuinely don't know what you mean. I suppose those forums would be off-limits to me, then? Also, which forums are you referring to?

[Nentony]

Having just read six pages of this debate(with interest) it's great that Gruyeres post comes at the end of my read. I totally agree.

Tony

Thats Tony Molledo in the unlikely event that anyone is interested.

[Pan]

Having just read six pages of this debate(with interest) it's great that Gruyeres post comes at the end of my read. I totally agree.[...]

←

Then perhaps you can interpret the passage I quoted.

[M.X.Hassett]

Having just read six pages of this debate(with interest) it's great that Gruyeres post comes at the end of my read. I totally agree.[...]

←

Darwin award??? or ALDaily

(broken power cord. Treo'ing it. sorry)

Edit2: Quotes suck

Edited November 18, 2005 by M.X.Hassett (log)

[melonpan]

i dont give that much but if we were forced to use our real names i would cease to contribute.

i post with some care and thought behind my words. some people can see this even though i dont use my real name. and for people who cant see it because i use some other name, thats fine with me...

i dont give people who post with their real names any more "credit" than those who dont use their names.

[Marco_Polo]

I, like many others, have followed this debate with great interest and I've veered between agreeing with both sides (the case for continued anonymity, the case for requiring participants to post under our own names).

It is worth recalling that ever since virtual communities started to proliferate on the Internet, people have enjoyed the possibilityof reinventing themselves, in chatrooms, on bulletin boards and fora such as this, and indeed on blogs and web sites. We define who we are - and who we want and aspire to be - through the creation of nicknames and with the use of creative avatars. In virtual communities, we can choose to change our gender (or not disclose it) or recreate ourselves in any image that we wish to see ourselves in, even if, to the outside world, it may have little basis in 'reality'.

In a commercial world, of course this may be open to abuse. Note how so-called readers' reviews on Amazon, perhaps rubbishing a book and causing real damage to on-line sales, have been linked to rival publishing houses. And there have certainly been cases on this site, have there not, where members have used the site to shill or rubbish a restaurant/person/book.

For what it's worth, I LOVE the nicknames and the personas on eGullet and would hate to see them go. After a while, through the personality of the posts combined with the persona perceived through the nickname/avatar, I feel I've gotten to 'know' that poster and indeed look forward to his/her posts. The same, of course, is true for those posters who choose instead to use their own names. But surely this site would be less rich, less idiosyncratic, less witty, and yes, less fun, if we did not have the anonymous on-line identities that we've created.

Of course, one can still use a nickname and an avatar and add a real name in our signatures, and this is perhaps what is being advocated. I think it's neither here nor there. What is clear is that one gains respect on this (and in any other virtual community) by the sincerity and quality of our contributions - not, I hasten to add, by the sheer volume of them. I like hanging out here and only contribute infrequently, so I still consider myself something of a newcomer. But I've been around long enough to know who's posts are always worth reading (for my taste and interest, that is) - and this most definitely has nothing to do with nickname or real name.

Sometimes new members join who, from their very first post, you can tell will be entertaining and informative and a good addition to this community. On the other hand, there are those who jump in, sometimes on controversial issues, having not yet established trust and respect and it is such 'anonymous' new members who's posts are sometimes treated with suspicion. Do they have a hidden agenda? Who are they?

Having considered both sides, I was on the point of adding my real name to my signature - but have now decided against doing so because of a point raised above. Yes, it's true, search engines such as Google catalog each and every eG post. In googling some members by their real names, screens and screens of individual posts come up, out of context and often above other related links that may be of more interest and professional value. That to me alone is a reason to avoid signing with my real name.

What may be of more value would be to encourage members to add biographical information that fleshes out (in whatever way we all care to reveal) something of who we are, what interests us, however creatively we wish to present this, irregardless of whether such 'facts' exist in reality or virtual reality. I originally posted some biographical details but then omited them simply because it seemed so few do so.

Marco Polo

[gruyere]

[...]There is now a spoiled brat mentality that pervades this debate maintaining the position that eGullet or at least certain forums within eGullet are meant for the well known or at least somewhat well know contributors and therefore require an identifiable right of passage.  This has not been said in as many words but the implication is consistent with recent input.[...]

←

I genuinely don't know what you mean. I suppose those forums would be off-limits to me, then? Also, which forums are you referring to?

←

Pan,

I am not referring to any particular forums. As I said my point cannot be supported by any direct quote, only by my interpretation of what has been implied by some posters. I have the impression that a particular group would like to see some forums designated for ‘real name only’ participants. This group, in my opinion, has a disproportionately high content of industry insiders and they may have a point. Maybe the rest of us would have ‘read only’ status. However I have never seen eGullet as a place where “the washroom at the front of the cabin is reserved for our business class passengers.”

[jackal10]

In science and philosophy it matters not who said it, but what is said"

I'm reluctant to join this debate, but it seems to me that the absolute identity of the poster is not the issue, unless you are celebrity spotting, but rather a consistent identity, so that posts can be cross referenced. For example you should not post under several different names, but if you wish to call yourself "Lord High Poojam" then you can, provided you do so consistently and no one else uses the same name.