More on Pseudonymity

Kelly Ramsey yesterday jumped on the “pseudonymity is bad” bandwagon, opining:

Bloggers often, but not always, publish under pseudonyms. So do teenagers, college students, and other random citizens of no intellectual import.

Judgemental much, Kelly? Whereas I believe opinions should be weighed and valued on their own merits, it’s clear that – as I pointed out before – for some, who’s talking is more important than what’s being said.

A well-maintained pseudonym also allows one to disappear, if need be. People who can readily disappear are not dependent upon their reputations.

Any number of people have written any number of interesting and noteworthy things – under their own names – and later disappeared. Online, you can be anyone, and anything, you wish. For all I know, “Kelly Ramsey” is a pseudonym for, say, Norm Coleman. Hey, I can’t prove otherwise, can I?

Why can a pseudonymous author not be “dependent” on their reputation? For that matter, why care so much about authorial reputation? Grow some critical thinking skills, and evaluate everything objectively. It’s much more productive than character attacks on pseudonymous personas…

Published in: General, Meta | on March 28th, 2006| 2 Comments »

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2 Comments

  1. On 3/29/2006 at 1:42 pm mlah Said:

    if you discredit all anonymous sources, you also discredit the federalist papers, by ‘publios’. benchmark in american politics and values.

  2. On 3/31/2006 at 1:49 am Why pseudonymity means irrelevance | Bark at the Hole Said:

    […] Reluctantly, I must give credit to Redpin of Entropic Memes (citation manners can be damned inconvenient) for alerting me to an interesting post and discussion at The American Prospect’s blog (27 March) about pseudonymous and anonymous political blogging. It has been quite valuable. Some observations: […]