I've been having an exchange with a commenter on this blog about psuedonymous comments. My basic position is that substantial comments are much more useful if the identity of the commenter is clear. I do not reject psuedonymous comments out of hand, but would encourage commenters who feel they must obscure their identity from readers of the blog (though not from me) to include in their comment something about themselves - role, area of work, expertise etc - which would help readers situate the comment. If I think the value of a comment is high even without that additional information then I will usually publish the comment. As in this case. I would welcome readers' views on this.
« 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" »
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
Recent Posts
- A leaving speech
- How algorithms manipulate the market
- Clayton Wright's Educational Technology and Education Conferences, January to June 2016
- Alphabet
- Paul Mason's Postcapitalism - talk and discussion
- FE Area Based Reviews should start by making an assessment of need
- Citizen Maths - powerful ideas in action
- Robotics - someone who ran DARPA's Robotics Challenge looks ahead
- On the long-term future of artificial intelligence
- A ten year old interview
Recent Comments
- David Hughes on A leaving speech
- Liz Perry on A leaving speech
- Khaled on If ever you need a really comprehensive "title" drop-down
- Mark Sosa on If ever you need a really comprehensive "title" drop-down
- Richard Stacy on Video and Online Learning: Critical Reflections and Findings From the Field
- Mike Jones on "The Facebook" Kyle McGrath's August 2005 assessment
- G Kelly on Syria-related readings
- Kris Sittler on Second report from Keith Devlin's and Coursera’s Introduction to Mathematical Thinking MOOC
- Robert McGuire on Second report from Keith Devlin's and Coursera’s Introduction to Mathematical Thinking MOOC
- Keith Devlin on Second report from Keith Devlin's and Coursera’s Introduction to Mathematical Thinking MOOC
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 ;-)
Posted by: AJ Cann | 22/01/2012 at 19:24
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!
Posted by: Mike Cooper | 06/02/2012 at 11:14