« David Hu's use of AI - including Bayes networks - in the Khan Academy's assessment systems | Main | A reaction to Apple's "reinvention of the text book" »


Personally, I'm happy with pseudonyms or anonymity - it'd the content of the comment that's more important. Downside: if the comment was really good, it is difficult to carry on a conversation with a commenter who is not clearly named, but I feel that has to be their decision.

Of course, on Google+, everyone has a real name ;-)

I'm with Seb, for the most part. Knowing who's saying something, and from what context and perspective, does have an undoubted impact on perception of the message content, and any evaluation of it. There's no guarantee that what's offered is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, of course; but it all contributes to the thinking.

The practical issue of being able to carry on the conversation more effectively is true, too, but to me that matters far less than better understanding a contributor's individual 'take' on an issue -- which as I say is made up of more elements than just WHAT they may write...

... Oh, and my name's indeed Mike Cooper; I'm a recent and very indirect 'group colleague' of Seb -- a free-lance consultant working in English FE, with only a limited expertise in, and technical grasp of, ICT/ILT (etc.) matters. So: make your mind up about what I say with those additional factors in mind, somehow, if you so wish!

The comments to this entry are closed.