• [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]

    you said who you were. A casual reader might wonder why you
    want to be anonymous.
    He replied:  You should judge my credibility by how my
    statements correspond with the facts, logic, and the law not by
    who I am. 251
    He had it partly right. Debating skills are not proof of any-
    thing. In the absence of a foundation for his comments, he
    hadn t earned anyone s trust. Credibility stems not just from
    smart arguments; it also comes from a willingness to stand
    behind those arguments when a compelling reason to stay anon-
    ymous is absent. There was none in this case.
    Another commenter, also using a false name, defended an
    electronic voting machine maker s use of copyright law to sup-
    press memos that revealed flaws in its voting systems. It seemed
    that he or she was also posting comments, using a different
    name but similar (and in some cases identical) language, on a
    blog about intellectual property sponsored by the University of
    California-Berkeley journalism school. I learned this because
    Mary Hodder, one of the principal authors of that blog,252
    noted similarities in style in postings on our respective sites,
    which we believe share a number of readers due to the topics we
    cover. We checked the Internet addresses from which the com-
    ments had been posted; they were identical. This didn t abso-
    lutely prove that the same person was making both comments,
    but it helped make the case. Not only was this person refusing
    to be identified, but he or she was trying to make it seem as
    though a posse was patrolling our blogs to show us the error of
    our ways when, in fact, it was just one person on both.
    What do these examples suggest? People reading comments
    on discussion boards would be wise to question the veracity of a
    commenter whenever they aren t absolutely sure where the
    posting is coming from.253
    181
    we the media
    As we discussed in Chapter 8, advances in technology are likely
    to bring us better ways to gauge and, in effect, manage reputa-
    tions and verify a commenter s bona fides without exposing his
    or her actual identity to the world.
    Googling someone, to see what else he or she has said
    online in other places, sounds like a good way to start. But it
    ultimately isn t the answer. If, however, someone has been using
    a consistent pseudonym, at least we have the possibility of
    knowing if a person is reputable or has been making trouble
    elsewhere.
    At the moment, my favorite solution is not the most prac-
    tical: if everyone had a blog or other kind of web site, they
    could include a link as a kind of digital signature. Yes, web sites
    can be faked, but a hoax that uses someone else s name or hides
    behind a pseudonym for improper purposes, could attract
    unwelcome attention from the authorities and because web
    site owners have to pay someone for hosting their site, the
    owner can be traced. Again, I would do nothing to stop ano-
    nymity on the Internet. But if we are going to have serious
    online discussions, I think all parties should, with few excep-
    tions, either be willing to verify who they are, or risk having
    their contributions be questioned and, in some cases, ignored.
    trolls and other annoyances
    Grassroots journalism has more problems than deciding
    whether anonymous posting is a good or bad idea. For starters,
    consider the trolls.
    Rob Malda, Jeff Bates, and their colleagues at Slashdot have
    been dealing with trolls for years. At Slashdot, subtitled  News
    for Nerds: Stuff that Matters, the readers do the heavy lifting.
    They re constantly combing the Web for interesting informa-
    tion articles, news stories, press releases, and mailing list
    postings and recommend the material to Slashdot s tiny
    182
    trolls, spin, and the boundaries of trust
    editorial staff. Each day, the editors select a dozen or so of the
    best items, which they highlight on the Slashdot homepage with
    a short summary and hyperlink, and invite readers to comment
    online. Then the editors sit back to watch what happens, and so
    do hundreds of thousands of other people.
    The initial summaries and links are the beginning of the
    conversation on Slashdot, not the end. The average item gener-
    ates about 250 comments. Some generate far more. Modera-
    tors, themselves selected on the basis of their participation in
    other discussions, rate the quality of the postings, and readers
    can adjust the results so they see everything or, as most do, a
    subset of the more substantive comments.
    The Slashdot team has had to keep tweaking the software
    that runs the Slashdot site, as well as the user-based moderation
    system, because of the trolls and vandals who try to clog the site
    with irrelevant or obscene postings, ruining the experience for
    others. It s a constant annoyance, Bates told me, but part of the
    price of doing business.
    How do you know if a troll is on your site? The definition
    on Ward Cunningham s Wiki says it best:
    A troll is deliberately crafted to provoke others with the inten-
    tion of wasting their time and energy. A troll is a time thief.
    To troll is to steal from people. That is what makes trolling
    heinous.
    Trolls can be identified by their disengagement from a con-
    versation or argument. They do not believe what they say, but
    merely say it for effect.
    Trolls are motivated by a desire for attention by people and
    can t or won t acquire it in a productive manner.
    Someone may be insufferable, infuriating, fanatical, and an
    ignorant idiot to boot without being a troll.
    Also note that a troll isn t necessarily insulting, snide, or
    even impolite. Only the crudest, most obvious, forms of
    trolling can be identified so easily.
    If you find yourself patiently explaining, at length and in
    great detail, some obscure point to someone who isn t even
    being polite to you, then you are probably being trolled.254
    183
    we the media
    User registration on comment systems, with a name and
    verifiable email address, can be a deterrent to trolls. The worst
    thing you can do, as Netizens know, is feed the troll. Ignoring
    him is usually the best answer. If people become abusive, they
    can be banned from discussions. Not everyone has a right to [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • zambezia2013.opx.pl