Comments on: X

By: Anonymous Authorship « the Go Librarians

Anonymous Authorship « the Go Librarians — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:16:24 +0000

[...] professional authorship. On the In the Library with the Lead Pipe blog, Emily Ford outlined her feelings about anonymous and pseudonymous authorship. Emily condemned all forms of professional discourse in [...]

By: Steven V. Kaszynski

Steven V. Kaszynski — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:53:54 +0000

I just chimed in on this topic at my blog. If you’ve a mind to, have a peek. http://golibrarians.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/anonymous-authorship/
Cheers.

By: ellie

ellie — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:31:05 +0000

I think I probably make more of my what to read decisions based on the identity of the person suggesting that I read the article. I probably don’t even note the author much of the time, though I may note the website that is hosting it. And of course, if something is put forward as “this study shows” then I try to go find the original study, but in terms of “here’s a take on this issue” I suppose I’m a bit of a drive-by reader, skimming for key ideas that make me think, possibly discussing them with whoever is nearby IRL, and moving on.

By: John Buschman

John Buschman — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:51:30 +0000

I do think we need to be careful in our discussions here about slip-sliding toward excusing anonymity as a necessary by-product. I believe that’s what Emily was trying to help us do with this posting. Having your boss mad at you is quite different than having your career actually, truly threatened. Boss mad doesn’t equal a reason to defend anonymous postings. That we can imagine a threat should not be enshrined *as* *the* *actual* threat.
Second, we need to grapple always with the means (technological anonymity) and what it enables (anonymous unaccountable attacks). I think we are at a case where it is in-for-a-penny, then you’re in-for-a-pound in this case: without a fairly bright line, you let a certain LJ-sponsored anonymous blogger/attack specialist into legitimate discourse.
Thanks all – a good exchange.

By: Brett Bonfield

Brett Bonfield — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:40:08 +0000

Definitely, though I seem to make decisions about what to read based, in part, on the identity of the author. I often find myself scanning an author’s bio, or running a quick profile search, before reading anything the person wrote. Almost always, if the author is anonymous (or even effectively anonymous), I’ll move on to the next thing.

I don’t know that I’d defend my strategy, but with so much available to read I think we have to have short cuts. And, given my reaction the few times I have made exceptions — personally, I think the “Ed Dante” piece in the Chronicle is a total waste of time — I think I’m unlikely to change any time soon.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:10:51 +0000

I wouldn’t like to work in an organization like that either, but what would happen if the place becomes that way? And assuming the economy, finding another job would be difficult? I think it’s a real catch-22. It’s like that George Bush quote that was something along the lines of “if you don’t support the war on terror, you support the terrorists.” No matter what, I shouldn’t have to be bullied into changing my mind.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:06:55 +0000

Unfortunately, not as well as we had hoped. My personal experience was having the director of the program call me a liar for saying I had taken an online class when it was “impossible.” Um, I totally took it online, buddy. Also my advising professor was told that if she published 3 times within the year, her contract was renewed. She published 4 with a 5th one pending and he didn’t renew her contract. Said the “committee” didn’t think she was doing all she should be. She was also one of the professors that agreed with our student presentation.

By: Jean Costello

Jean Costello — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:24:24 +0000

Great post! I agree with everything said above.

I also support moderated anonymity – that is, publishing content anonymously, on behalf of someone who feels risk of harm by being identified. I’ve offered anonymity to people who work in libraries that have told me they’d like to offer the type of analysis I do on The Radical Patron blog but cannot for fear of being ostracized by coworkers or censured by management.

What would make anonymity workable in this case, I think, is that authors would not truly be anonymous – I’d know them. My name and photo are on the masthead and I’m not going to publish anything I believe is unproductive or inappropriate.

Would be great if Library Journal used the same judgement.

By: ellie

ellie — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:53:10 +0000

I think overall I tend to agree, but for me the focus is still on the content not the identity. I don’t think griping or personal attacks are productive and people are more likely to gripe and attack anonymously, but I don’t personally take issue with anonymity itself.

By: Laura Zeigen

Laura Zeigen — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:06:48 +0000

“Progress cannot happen without respectful and productive disagreement.”

Agreed, but where did (or were) we supposed to learn this? Sometimes this learning happens in classrooms when teachers are able to facilitate such a discussion. However, aside from anyone who participated in public speaking and formal debate, where is this idea (respectful and productive disagreement as good and a necessary part of progress) taught or embedded? Supposedly it’s a core part of American culture, but too often the “respectful” and “productive” aspects of public discourse don’t make it to the table.

How does a culture (a country or an organization or a profession) transform into one where respectful disagreement is not just “tolerated”, but actively encouraged?