I have just read the the comments recently posted on the PO Bulletin Board and I would like to compliment the person who wrote them. All of his/her points are well thought-out and extremely well-expressed. Many of them I agree with. I am disappointed, however, that whoever wrote them is unwilling to sign their name. The entire focus of the Yale Study is the future of Fishers Island and if we are to have a meaningful public debate, individuals and groups need to make their views known without Comment s . Again, I am writing these comments to an equally anonymous e-mail address — why can’t we have these ideas expressed on a PUBLIC website to which we can all contribute in a responsible way? If anyone has anything meaningful and credible to say, they should be willing to sign their name……
Sara McLean, May 21, 2014
Sara,
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of your points, but not all. Many people feel disenfranchised by the top down approach of the Yale study. If Yale and its benefactors wanted a public debate then they might have established a bottom up review and used a broad based sample from the get go. Very few people were asked to participate in the study until after the “draft” was published.
To answer your question; does attaching a name change the impact of a good idea? To quote a friend “the obvious points are retribution, both social and professional, and that the validity of the ideas should not be colored by the identity of the author.”
Gordon Murphy
Ideally, anyone commenting should feel safe in posting their comments. Most newspapers don't publish editorial comments, though, unless the person submitting those comments is willing to provide legit identity. Today digital media ethics are so layered and complex that they're almost impossible to quantify. Here's a link to a discussion about digital journalism---blogs are everywhere, and must be examined and considered a form, or at least a branch, of journalism.
Deletehttp://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/resources/digital-media-ethics/#difficult
Blog administrators are editors/publishers. They establish editorial rules and accessibility; rules are usually established for a reason, and the public may accept or reject those reasons, participate or not participate.
I feel that signing one's name is the most transparent and accountable way to end a letter or blog post. On the other hand, if a person does not feel safe or comfortable signing their name in a forum like this, it's a reflection on the community. The larger a community the more anonymous citizens are, even when we sign our names. Lives and livelihoods/agendas are less likely to overlap. In smaller communities, this tends to not be the case.
This doesn't speak to the number of people Yale interviewed for their study; I'm only responding to the "to sign or not to sign" conundrum---and the Lost Apostrophe's statement of goals.
Tammy Christel
There are three strong reasons underpinning the value of an anonymous blog. Past controversies have been accompanied by claims of retribution to those who dissent. Retributions may be of a social or economic type. It matters not whether such claims or true, just that the perception exists. Its presence chills open discussion. Local residents who depend on the goodwill of summer residents for their livelihood and wellbeing are particularly sensitive to this concern. At the same time their input is essential. An anonymous forum will encourage wider participation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sentiment that the entire future of the island is at stake. But I think this reinforces the imperative to have a anonymous forum. Ideas and concepts should stand or fall on their own merit. If authorship is attached, it can potentially color the way the ideas are received. The influence can work both ways. If the author is prominent, the idea may receive more credibility than it would if presented by a more obscure source. Similarly, if a reader believed that the author had a different agenda, they may well be more dismissive. Anonymity removes those dangers. Such concerns are more magnified in a small community where everyone knows everyone else.
The goal is to achieve as an objective discussion as possible, and to decide the issues in an impassioned way. Any criticism that descends to a personal level will impede that goal. While it is assumed that the Lost Apostrophe will filter the more egregious attempts at personal attacks, anonyminity will ultimately be the best defense.