different blogs, different masks

Sometimes I think that if I were starting blogging today, I would choose to write under a pseudonym. I think that I may have wanted that initially, but the blogging software I was using at the time - Radio userland - had a default of displaying the blogger's name. Before I learned how to turn that off, my name was already out there in links from other bloggers. It's interesting how little seemingly random accidents can have a lasting impact.

But I wasn't too worried that my name was out there. At first it seemed that my blogging life would always be quarantined from the rest of my life. It seemed like a long long time before I met any other bloggers face to face or anyone who had read my blog.

Of course everything's different now. I am aware that every word I write is potentially viewable by my past, present and future employers and co-workers, prospective girlfriends, exes, friends and enemies, all sorts of family members, including my mother. When I get an idea for a post, at some point I need to decide whether this is the sort of post I want to have on my blog, given all of this.

If I blogged under a pseudonym, I wouldn't have to worry about this. I could be more controversial and not worry about alienating the prejudiced and easily offended. There would be other things to worry about - namely protecting my secret identity. When writing about specific work or personal things, I couldn't be too detailed, or I would need to fictionalize some of the details (although that can be fun). I would need to keep other bloggers at arm's length, and would be reluctant to attend blogging meetups or be involved in a group like lint.

I do think that there are advantages and disadvantages to both kinds of authorship.

I don't buy into the "named bloggers are inherently more ethical and accurate" argument either. For me, the potential readership of this blog does make me feel personally accountable for my blogging - to play nice with others and not be sloppy in my research or writing. But just because it's like this for me, I can't assume that it's like this for everyone or that the converse is true - that anonymous/pseudonymous bloggers don't care about playing nice or checking their facts. Recently at MPOW I was put in a very unusual situation - of needing to find a shortlist of blogs in a subject I didn't know a lot about, project management. Although I feel very reticent about rating blogs, I devised a quick & dirty way that I could live with. Whether the blog was written under a pseudonym or by a named author was irrelevant. It's possible that under my criteria, a named blog by somebody who really has made a name for themselves may receive bonus points, but that's as far as it would go. If a blog - be it named or pseudonymous - contained mean-spirited ad hominem attacks, I'd probably rate it low for "quality" and give it negative bonus points.

Before I finish, I should probably mention that this post is my indirect response to the Annoyed Librarian's post on this. I have a lot of time for the Annoyed Librarian. We have a couple of things in common: we are both skeptics about the librarian shortage and we have both made fun of 2.0 stuff. I still think that the Library 2.0 label has done more harm than good. I care deeply about the components, which existed quite happily before anyone made up the lame Library 2.0 term. It still annoys me that these pre-existing technologies and ideas have been co-opted by Library 2.0, when I think they would have been better off left on their own. Mark my words, it won't be long before Library 2.0 sounds as cringe worthy as that mid-1990s gem "information superhighway." Where I differ from the Annoyed Librarian is that I do care about advancing much of what has been labelled Library 2.0. Because of this, I have been willing to jump on the Library 2.0 bandwagon when it's helped me communicate and work with colleagues, and then I jump off again and it's been ok.

See also

the power and/or vulnerability of named and anonymous bloggers (July 2005)

Comments

[snail]

I'm somewhat bemused by the current "controversy" over anonymity, these sorts of arguments have been going round and round for many a year (eg Deep Throat/Watergate). As I think I read in one of the comments elsewhere, folk don't seem to mind anonymity unless the comment is something controversial or antagonistic. At which point, the anonymity is used as a character attack. I suppose "snail" is psuedonymous to some but most folk (in Oz at least) seem to know my real name and how to contact me. I've been using it for nearly 20 years and stand by everything I've said under it. To the point where next year I'm seriously considering changing my real name to "snail". A downside of having a single name will be all those forms that insist on 2 names :-)

[Michelle McLean]

Great post Morgan. Sometimes I think I'd like to start an anonymous blog so that I could write about the things that happen at my work or in my professional undertakings that I can't as a named blogger. Never know, one day I might take the plunge on that - but not after having just announced that consideration here, lol.

[Talking Books Librarian]

Yes, there are some interesting blog discussions regarding anonymous blogging. Myself, I made the choice to blog "anonymously". I recently started blogging... if all goes well, I may eventually remove the anonymous part... we'll see! I am interested in any feedback on my blog too! It’s about Talking Books, among other things… let me know what you think! http://talkingbookslibrarian.blogspot.com/

[Carleen]

Really enjoyed your thoughts on this. I don't think that the quality of a blog should be based on whether it's anonymous or not. To me, it's always been about the content. I also often considered doing an anonymous blog so I could talk freely about some of the frustrations I have with work. In fact, I recently quit my old blog with this intent but I eventually came to the conclusion that I really didn't want to spend that much time ranting about things, and would prefer to spend it trying to make things better instead. And thank you for the criteria on evaluating blogs, very helpful reference tool. :-)

[morgan]

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

Carleen: Sometimes venting is helpful & necessary, but I see your point about using your energies to try to make things better. You could always make a blog about what happens when you try to make things better - what works and what doesn't... That one had better be under a pseudonym, unless your coworkers & management are remarkably open.

Michelle: My little secret is that I have recently started a different blog under a pseudonym. I wish it had more readers but I'll resist the temptation to identify it here or anywhere. All I can say is that it's not about library stuff and it's remarkably obscure. It is liberating to be able to write about anything and not needing to worry about what people might think.

snail: What if you changed your name so that your last name was the same as your first name, like snail snail? I know somebody called Thomas Thomas

Talking Books Librarian: Your blog's going in my reader. Good luck with it!

[Carleen]

I definitely need to vent...but I usually do it with my husband. That way I don't have to worry so much about my grammer and sentence structure. :-P

I think maybe the real reason I haven't is because we've already had one situation where someone was put on probation for something they posted about work. I have another co-worker who is in library school right now. One of her class requirements this semester was to start their own professional library blog. She told me the other day that she was really nervous about blogging. Everytime she sat down to write she was worried that what she would say would get her in trouble. In this case she wasn't able to be anonymous because her assignment required her to have her name on her blog.