Sock Puppets July 17, 2005 12:18 AM Subscribe
An Apologia for Sock-Puppets [more inside]
The link for 'A', sock-puppet, was supposed to point here.
posted by ori at 12:21 AM on July 17, 2005
posted by ori at 12:21 AM on July 17, 2005
You found an overly wordy quote by Borges.
You win. Something.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 12:29 AM on July 17, 2005
You win. Something.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 12:29 AM on July 17, 2005
OK.
Sock-puppets damage the easy transmission of information.
They represent not a person but a fragment of a person, an idea made into a voice.
Anonymous accounts within mefi, and anonymous voices in general, should actually be encouraged because they allow more and more uninhibited communication.
Multiply anonymous voices are entropic - they reduce the amount of information in the world - they make it easier to disbelieve in things we find hard to believe.
Sock-puppets can fuck-off.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 12:39 AM on July 17, 2005
Sock-puppets damage the easy transmission of information.
They represent not a person but a fragment of a person, an idea made into a voice.
Anonymous accounts within mefi, and anonymous voices in general, should actually be encouraged because they allow more and more uninhibited communication.
Multiply anonymous voices are entropic - they reduce the amount of information in the world - they make it easier to disbelieve in things we find hard to believe.
Sock-puppets can fuck-off.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 12:39 AM on July 17, 2005
Fuck sockpuppetry. It subverts community, and the obfuscates and erodes at the foundations the only way by which most of us here can know each other -- through our words. It's manipulative, cynical and it hurts Metafilter.
Change your avatar's identity permanently, retire a username? Sure, you have that right. Everyone's allowed to start fresh, or should be.
Run two or more at the same time, though, and you're shitting all over those of us who try to discuss and argue and enjoy ourselves in good faith, and are willing to have what we say become part of the shared history of the site, regardless of how anonymous or open the connections to our real world identity might be.
There are things I wish I hadn't said over the years at this site, arguments I wish I hadn't gotten into, but I've got the testicular fortitude to stand behind what I've said, even if it was totally wrong, egregiously stupid, or insupportably nasty. None of us are perfect, least of all me. But what people know of me, or think of me, if they bother to, comes as a result of all the thousands of words that make, in effect, the 'me' that's know as the wonderchicken. That's one of the things that make whatever version of the noun 'community' that you care to use after the adjective 'online' work.
So I say again, fuck the puppets for the empty-headed child's entertainment scams that they are.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:41 AM on July 17, 2005
Change your avatar's identity permanently, retire a username? Sure, you have that right. Everyone's allowed to start fresh, or should be.
Run two or more at the same time, though, and you're shitting all over those of us who try to discuss and argue and enjoy ourselves in good faith, and are willing to have what we say become part of the shared history of the site, regardless of how anonymous or open the connections to our real world identity might be.
There are things I wish I hadn't said over the years at this site, arguments I wish I hadn't gotten into, but I've got the testicular fortitude to stand behind what I've said, even if it was totally wrong, egregiously stupid, or insupportably nasty. None of us are perfect, least of all me. But what people know of me, or think of me, if they bother to, comes as a result of all the thousands of words that make, in effect, the 'me' that's know as the wonderchicken. That's one of the things that make whatever version of the noun 'community' that you care to use after the adjective 'online' work.
So I say again, fuck the puppets for the empty-headed child's entertainment scams that they are.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:41 AM on July 17, 2005
'...foundations of...'
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:43 AM on July 17, 2005
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:43 AM on July 17, 2005
You found an overly wordy quote by Borges.
You win. Something.
Yes, I just thumbed through my copy Bartlett's Familiar Quotations for the "Polysemy of Self" category for some tried-and-true tropes.
Multiply anonymous voices are entropic - they reduce the amount of information in the world - they make it easier to disbelieve in things we find hard to believe.
I don't understand the bit about entropy at all. Can you explain a bit further?
As far as belief, I don't understand how that plays a part in mostly-pseudonymous internet discourse. I mean, do you ever think, "So-and-so makes an excellent point about the ethics of torture, but s/he might be a sock-puppet, so I'm going to disregard him/her entirely"? But perhaps I've misunderstood you again--if so, please explain.
Fuck sockpuppetry. It subverts community, and the obfuscates and erodes at the foundations the only way by which most of us here can know each other -- through our words. It's manipulative, cynical and it hurts Metafilter.
Again, I honestly don't see how sock-puppetry subverts community. The overwhelming majority of the time, you are discoursing with pseudonyms. Is a one-to-one correlation between usernames and users so necessary for community?
I don't think 'sock-puppetry' is necessarily disingenuous, or a means of escaping one's mefi legacy; it can be an interesting method for bringing into play different aspects of one's self. I think it's very cynical of you to think that everyone who cultivates multiple mefi personalities does so out of malice or cowardice.
FWIW, I don't have any mefi sock-puppets myself (obviously, you have to choose whether or not to believe me on this.) My username is my first name, which is uncommon enough that anyone with a bit of inclination should be able to find me in the phonebook. But I do admire anyone whose powers of self-invention are sufficiently vast to allow for the cultivation of multiple mefi personalities, and I totally defend the right of any mefi user to do so.
posted by ori at 1:05 AM on July 17, 2005
You win. Something.
Yes, I just thumbed through my copy Bartlett's Familiar Quotations for the "Polysemy of Self" category for some tried-and-true tropes.
Multiply anonymous voices are entropic - they reduce the amount of information in the world - they make it easier to disbelieve in things we find hard to believe.
I don't understand the bit about entropy at all. Can you explain a bit further?
As far as belief, I don't understand how that plays a part in mostly-pseudonymous internet discourse. I mean, do you ever think, "So-and-so makes an excellent point about the ethics of torture, but s/he might be a sock-puppet, so I'm going to disregard him/her entirely"? But perhaps I've misunderstood you again--if so, please explain.
Fuck sockpuppetry. It subverts community, and the obfuscates and erodes at the foundations the only way by which most of us here can know each other -- through our words. It's manipulative, cynical and it hurts Metafilter.
Again, I honestly don't see how sock-puppetry subverts community. The overwhelming majority of the time, you are discoursing with pseudonyms. Is a one-to-one correlation between usernames and users so necessary for community?
I don't think 'sock-puppetry' is necessarily disingenuous, or a means of escaping one's mefi legacy; it can be an interesting method for bringing into play different aspects of one's self. I think it's very cynical of you to think that everyone who cultivates multiple mefi personalities does so out of malice or cowardice.
FWIW, I don't have any mefi sock-puppets myself (obviously, you have to choose whether or not to believe me on this.) My username is my first name, which is uncommon enough that anyone with a bit of inclination should be able to find me in the phonebook. But I do admire anyone whose powers of self-invention are sufficiently vast to allow for the cultivation of multiple mefi personalities, and I totally defend the right of any mefi user to do so.
posted by ori at 1:05 AM on July 17, 2005
I don't understand the bit about entropy at all. Can you explain a bit further?
It's easy to be someone else online - that's been known for years.
To do it as a performance, as a way of making a single point, makes it hard for those who want to make many points while remaining anonymous.
So, in a small way, the net total of information in the world is reduced because the net total of trust in the world is reduced.
Is a one-to-one correlation between usernames and users so necessary for community?
For me it is.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:27 AM on July 17, 2005
It's easy to be someone else online - that's been known for years.
To do it as a performance, as a way of making a single point, makes it hard for those who want to make many points while remaining anonymous.
So, in a small way, the net total of information in the world is reduced because the net total of trust in the world is reduced.
Is a one-to-one correlation between usernames and users so necessary for community?
For me it is.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:27 AM on July 17, 2005
Pessoa had the benefit of being much smarter than any of us.
posted by bardic at 1:35 AM on July 17, 2005
posted by bardic at 1:35 AM on July 17, 2005
"But what people know of me, or think of me, if they bother to, comes as a result of all the thousands of words that make, in effect, the 'me' that's know as the wonderchicken."
But if it's wrong to subdivide the responsibility for your public words on metafilter (that is, be unaccoutable for the words of another persona), then why isn't it wrong to subdivide the responsibility for your public words in general? The distinction is only supportable if you believe that mefi is an exceptional public place, an effectively private space. That's not the case. The intiution that tells some of us that sock-puppet mefi accounts are wrong is the intuition that should be telling some of us that pseudonymous public personas are wrong. It's a deliberate evasion of responsibility.
Conversely, if the functional beauty of the discourse made possible by this technology is the expression of the many voices which make up each one of us, or is specifically the ability to say necessary or functionally useful things without the possibility of retribution, then those are virtues of sock-puppets accounts as well, as this post is arguing.
In my view, there is truth to both sides of the argument. But the price paid for the benefits of the latter is too high.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:42 AM on July 17, 2005
But if it's wrong to subdivide the responsibility for your public words on metafilter (that is, be unaccoutable for the words of another persona), then why isn't it wrong to subdivide the responsibility for your public words in general? The distinction is only supportable if you believe that mefi is an exceptional public place, an effectively private space. That's not the case. The intiution that tells some of us that sock-puppet mefi accounts are wrong is the intuition that should be telling some of us that pseudonymous public personas are wrong. It's a deliberate evasion of responsibility.
Conversely, if the functional beauty of the discourse made possible by this technology is the expression of the many voices which make up each one of us, or is specifically the ability to say necessary or functionally useful things without the possibility of retribution, then those are virtues of sock-puppets accounts as well, as this post is arguing.
In my view, there is truth to both sides of the argument. But the price paid for the benefits of the latter is too high.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:42 AM on July 17, 2005
thatwhichfalls, I sympathize with your concern for boxing with shadows, but I think your suspicion is misplaced.
For you to engage with a user, you seem to me to be saying, you need to believe that it corresponds with a real person, and that this person stands behind what he or she say. The first condition is always satisfied, and the second depends on your faith--sock-puppet or not. People often play the devil's advocate.
I still, unfortunately, don't get your entropy argument.
Pessoa had the benefit of being much smarter than any of us.
posted by bardic at 1:35 AM PST on July 17
Fine: Pessoa had, if I recall correctly, about seventy different heteronyms, developed to various degrees. Can I have two?
Ethereal Bligh, nicely said--but what is this grave price you speak of? The widespread pseudonimity on mefi represents an evolution of authorial paradigms; some communities, like wikipedia, go even further and are still successful. Sock-puppetry is not a new phenomenon, and it has proven extremely fruitful in the past--take, for example, ancient pseudepigraphy.
Ultimately, the various Jewish and early Christian sects put a stop to the practice, because they wanted a fixed canon of texts as a center of orthodoxy, and they ultimately found the pseudepigrapha too subversive. Since we are not (I hope) interested in maintaining orthodoxy, I don't see why we should come to the same conclusion.
posted by ori at 2:11 AM on July 17, 2005
For you to engage with a user, you seem to me to be saying, you need to believe that it corresponds with a real person, and that this person stands behind what he or she say. The first condition is always satisfied, and the second depends on your faith--sock-puppet or not. People often play the devil's advocate.
I still, unfortunately, don't get your entropy argument.
Pessoa had the benefit of being much smarter than any of us.
posted by bardic at 1:35 AM PST on July 17
Fine: Pessoa had, if I recall correctly, about seventy different heteronyms, developed to various degrees. Can I have two?
Ethereal Bligh, nicely said--but what is this grave price you speak of? The widespread pseudonimity on mefi represents an evolution of authorial paradigms; some communities, like wikipedia, go even further and are still successful. Sock-puppetry is not a new phenomenon, and it has proven extremely fruitful in the past--take, for example, ancient pseudepigraphy.
Ultimately, the various Jewish and early Christian sects put a stop to the practice, because they wanted a fixed canon of texts as a center of orthodoxy, and they ultimately found the pseudepigrapha too subversive. Since we are not (I hope) interested in maintaining orthodoxy, I don't see why we should come to the same conclusion.
posted by ori at 2:11 AM on July 17, 2005
It's only a web site.
posted by grouse at 2:11 AM PST on July 17
It's only a web site insofar as a university is only a bunch of concrete arranged into buildings, and libraries are only large collections of shapes printed on wood-shavings. What is being discussed here is how an intellectual community conducts itself and understands such notions as authenticity. I'm sorry you don't find this important enough.
posted by ori at 2:22 AM on July 17, 2005
posted by grouse at 2:11 AM PST on July 17
It's only a web site insofar as a university is only a bunch of concrete arranged into buildings, and libraries are only large collections of shapes printed on wood-shavings. What is being discussed here is how an intellectual community conducts itself and understands such notions as authenticity. I'm sorry you don't find this important enough.
posted by ori at 2:22 AM on July 17, 2005
And I'm sorry you feel the need to endlessly rehash this topic. My estimation is that most people here don't care whether people have sock puppets or not. There are a very small number of people who claim to really dislike sock puppets. Ironically, some of them are anonymous, so there is no way of telling whether they are sockpuppets or not.
You heard it here first. Stavrosthewonderchicken is a sock puppet. J'accuse!
posted by grouse at 2:44 AM on July 17, 2005
You heard it here first. Stavrosthewonderchicken is a sock puppet. J'accuse!
posted by grouse at 2:44 AM on July 17, 2005
Quelle Dommage!
/stops being drunken, goes to bed. Often dreams in French.
posted by bardic at 3:07 AM on July 17, 2005
/stops being drunken, goes to bed. Often dreams in French.
posted by bardic at 3:07 AM on July 17, 2005
Again, I honestly don't see how sock-puppetry subverts community. The overwhelming majority of the time, you are discoursing with pseudonyms.
Pseudonymy is not the point here, nor anonymity. If you don't get it, well, hell, that's honestly not my problem, and I haven't got the time or energy, or the interest, to be rude, to try and edumacate you. Hint: the differing experience of 'other' between face-to-face discourse (or even verbal, telephonic conversation) and interaction in text are down near the root of it. Michel Foucault is, of course, utterly full of shit, but he's amusing, and the quote you pull from him is actually pretty apposite. The roots of his philosophicomedy are tangled together with this, down under the dirt.
The owner of this site, considered by some to be one of the go-to people in the webby world on issues of community (or so I've heard (*waits for quonsar to post the micturating pachyderm pic*)), has said the same sort of thing about consistency of identity being a keystone of community, and repeatedly. I happen to agree with him.
If you haven't already, I suggest you skim the Metatalk archives for past discussions of this ('this' being: how important consistent personae with perceived good-faith investment and history are to a sense of community (sense of community being the real meat on the bones, here, because even if you build it, they may not come), regardless of the relative pseudonymity of those personae. Other reading, if you haven't already done it, might include MeFite Derek Powazek's book Design for Community, which includes much discussion of Metafilter.
I'm sorry you don't find this important enough.
I believe grouse was repeating an old, dismissive chestnut that got used so often it became an injoke of sorts. More reason for you to go back and enjoy the goodness that exists in the archives, perhaps.
J'accuse!
I am both much more than wonderchicken, and less. The reality of who we are, names aside, lies somewhere between what we think ourselves to be, what we hope to be, and what others think we are. The wiggle room between the three is where a lot of fun happens.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:22 AM on July 17, 2005
Pseudonymy is not the point here, nor anonymity. If you don't get it, well, hell, that's honestly not my problem, and I haven't got the time or energy, or the interest, to be rude, to try and edumacate you. Hint: the differing experience of 'other' between face-to-face discourse (or even verbal, telephonic conversation) and interaction in text are down near the root of it. Michel Foucault is, of course, utterly full of shit, but he's amusing, and the quote you pull from him is actually pretty apposite. The roots of his philosophicomedy are tangled together with this, down under the dirt.
The owner of this site, considered by some to be one of the go-to people in the webby world on issues of community (or so I've heard (*waits for quonsar to post the micturating pachyderm pic*)), has said the same sort of thing about consistency of identity being a keystone of community, and repeatedly. I happen to agree with him.
If you haven't already, I suggest you skim the Metatalk archives for past discussions of this ('this' being: how important consistent personae with perceived good-faith investment and history are to a sense of community (sense of community being the real meat on the bones, here, because even if you build it, they may not come), regardless of the relative pseudonymity of those personae. Other reading, if you haven't already done it, might include MeFite Derek Powazek's book Design for Community, which includes much discussion of Metafilter.
I'm sorry you don't find this important enough.
I believe grouse was repeating an old, dismissive chestnut that got used so often it became an injoke of sorts. More reason for you to go back and enjoy the goodness that exists in the archives, perhaps.
J'accuse!
I am both much more than wonderchicken, and less. The reality of who we are, names aside, lies somewhere between what we think ourselves to be, what we hope to be, and what others think we are. The wiggle room between the three is where a lot of fun happens.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:22 AM on July 17, 2005
"My estimation is that most people here don't care whether people have sock puppets or not."
I have the opposite estimation. But I do think it's true that most people aren't concerned about the problem because it's not that big of a problem (so far).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:28 AM on July 17, 2005
I have the opposite estimation. But I do think it's true that most people aren't concerned about the problem because it's not that big of a problem (so far).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:28 AM on July 17, 2005
>Ironically, some of them are anonymous, so there is no way of telling whether they are sockpuppets or not.
That's a bit weird, because how do we know you are *who* you say you are.
You could have just taken someone's identity and patched that onto your userpage. Until one meets in public meatspace, all kinds of arguments talking about the so-called irony of anonymity is a bit... strange.
Now, I trust your userpage. I think it's rather informative and adds some depth. But with the poliferation of sockpuppets it's harder to *trust* anything other than an open identity. If someone anonymous or open decides to use a sockpuppet then what does that say about the irony of anonymity, and the point of placing information on a userpage. In fact, sockpuppets hurt anonymity more than open identities.
posted by gsb at 4:36 AM on July 17, 2005
That's a bit weird, because how do we know you are *who* you say you are.
You could have just taken someone's identity and patched that onto your userpage. Until one meets in public meatspace, all kinds of arguments talking about the so-called irony of anonymity is a bit... strange.
Now, I trust your userpage. I think it's rather informative and adds some depth. But with the poliferation of sockpuppets it's harder to *trust* anything other than an open identity. If someone anonymous or open decides to use a sockpuppet then what does that say about the irony of anonymity, and the point of placing information on a userpage. In fact, sockpuppets hurt anonymity more than open identities.
posted by gsb at 4:36 AM on July 17, 2005
sorry, post instead of preview
proliferation, and maybe not even that word. Perhaps, "vocal."
posted by gsb at 4:38 AM on July 17, 2005
proliferation, and maybe not even that word. Perhaps, "vocal."
posted by gsb at 4:38 AM on July 17, 2005
stavros, I agree with everything you've said, but when I've been asked about this recently, I didn't think it was a big enough problem to warrant such a strong reaction. It seems like a problem that is building though, and people are growing increasingly annoyed by it for all the reasons you state.
My only question is simple: how on earth should sockpuppets be avoided? It's an open registration process, and sometimes the same person pays for their spouse or friend's username, so I can't just force unique paypal addresses (which can be changed anyway). How could we stop this on a social level, aside from a plea on the new user page?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:44 AM on July 17, 2005
My only question is simple: how on earth should sockpuppets be avoided? It's an open registration process, and sometimes the same person pays for their spouse or friend's username, so I can't just force unique paypal addresses (which can be changed anyway). How could we stop this on a social level, aside from a plea on the new user page?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:44 AM on July 17, 2005
"No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true."
--Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter
How could we stop this on a social level, aside from a plea on the new user page?
Perhaps someone could create a directory of obvious sock puppets, for reference -- if by sockpuppetry we mean not anonymous or pseudonymous accounts, but those which betray primary motivations of contributing much more noise than signal.
posted by Lush at 5:15 AM on July 17, 2005
--Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter
How could we stop this on a social level, aside from a plea on the new user page?
Perhaps someone could create a directory of obvious sock puppets, for reference -- if by sockpuppetry we mean not anonymous or pseudonymous accounts, but those which betray primary motivations of contributing much more noise than signal.
posted by Lush at 5:15 AM on July 17, 2005
That's a bit weird, because how do we know you are *who* you say you are.
Feel free to send me an e-mail any time.
I feel like I've been able to contribute to this community a lot due to disclosing my identity in various ways. And you know, I kind of resent it when anonymous people say they don't want me to have the option of anonymity when it is harmful to me.
posted by grouse at 5:43 AM on July 17, 2005
Feel free to send me an e-mail any time.
I feel like I've been able to contribute to this community a lot due to disclosing my identity in various ways. And you know, I kind of resent it when anonymous people say they don't want me to have the option of anonymity when it is harmful to me.
posted by grouse at 5:43 AM on July 17, 2005
the answer is you can't, mathowie ... i'm sure you know that ... proxies, different computers in different places, different isps, different paypal accounts ... if someone wants to have a sock puppet account badly enough, they're going to get one
it's an intrinsic part of the medium that identity can be changed or is often unknowable
if people aren't happy with that, i suggest they have their conversations in person ... there seems to be an assumption in this debate that we are actually capable of knowing each other well through the internet ... i find that questionable
posted by pyramid termite at 5:51 AM on July 17, 2005
it's an intrinsic part of the medium that identity can be changed or is often unknowable
if people aren't happy with that, i suggest they have their conversations in person ... there seems to be an assumption in this debate that we are actually capable of knowing each other well through the internet ... i find that questionable
posted by pyramid termite at 5:51 AM on July 17, 2005
My only question is simple: how on earth should sockpuppets be avoided? [...] How could we stop this on a social level, aside from a plea on the new user page?
I think that if it's something that is generally known to be generally frowned upon, and why, then, well that's enough. A note on the new user page should be enough, I'd hope. At the end of the day, you've gotta depend on the good will of the people around you not to pee in the pool, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:59 AM on July 17, 2005
I think that if it's something that is generally known to be generally frowned upon, and why, then, well that's enough. A note on the new user page should be enough, I'd hope. At the end of the day, you've gotta depend on the good will of the people around you not to pee in the pool, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:59 AM on July 17, 2005
mathowie writes "How could we stop this on a social level, aside from a plea on the new user page?"
I think conversations like this are the way to control it on a social level. There may always be sock-puppets with an open registrations process, but if the indications from the community in general are that they are frowned upon, well that will stop at least some of them; and it will set the tone for conversations about sock-puppets that are causing problems. [On preview-What the chicken said.]
ori writes "What is being discussed here is how an intellectual community conducts itself and understands such notions as authenticity."
I like the way you structured this post, just because it gave me a smile. I think, though, that your desire for a post-structuralist lack of fixed correspondence is making it difficult for you to understand the valid objections to sock-puppets, which exist in both the realms of ideas and psychology. The part you quoted from "What is an author?" fails to describe the kind of discussions that take place on MeFi because these discussions are largely in real-time. I think there is a need to be able to identify one's interlocutors in such conversations, to be able to have faith that there is a stable referent for 'ori' and that even the positions 'ori' takes with which 'ori' might actually disagree are traced back to him. In other words, there is a different kind of authorship going on on MeFi, because the nature of writing is actually closer to that of conversation (apologies to Maurice Blanchot, but I don't think literature actually does constitute an Infinite Conversation). To go one step further: Foucault's later thought is clearly about how being a person (a subject) means being in community, the care of the self is both a set of personal acts and choices and a public set of such choices. Having a single pseudonym contributes to the ability to make those choices, having several actually limits those choices by diffusing them, which is how I read the entropy comment above.
Ethereal Bligh writes "The intiution that tells some of us that sock-puppet mefi accounts are wrong is the intuition that should be telling some of us that pseudonymous public personas are wrong. It's a deliberate evasion of responsibility."
I don't agree with this at all. The internet is not the polis, and in fact, there are clear indications that the polis has no idea what or how to think of the speech found on the internet. It's an emerging technology, and as such, generates emergencies of privacy, legal responsiblity, reprecussion and recriminations much more quickly than similar acts of speech in other realms. In fact, part of the problem is precisely speech acts as described by Austin, it's unclear to many (participants and observers) to what extent speech on the internet can and should be connected to other realms of life. In that climate, singular pseudonyms make it possible for many people to contribute who otherwise would not be able to. Sock puppets make it more possible for already anonymous individuals to litter a community space that they find important enough to wish to preserve their (other) good name.
For the record, I don't have much of a problem with sock puppets, although this conversation is changing my mind.
posted by OmieWise at 6:15 AM on July 17, 2005
I think conversations like this are the way to control it on a social level. There may always be sock-puppets with an open registrations process, but if the indications from the community in general are that they are frowned upon, well that will stop at least some of them; and it will set the tone for conversations about sock-puppets that are causing problems. [On preview-What the chicken said.]
ori writes "What is being discussed here is how an intellectual community conducts itself and understands such notions as authenticity."
I like the way you structured this post, just because it gave me a smile. I think, though, that your desire for a post-structuralist lack of fixed correspondence is making it difficult for you to understand the valid objections to sock-puppets, which exist in both the realms of ideas and psychology. The part you quoted from "What is an author?" fails to describe the kind of discussions that take place on MeFi because these discussions are largely in real-time. I think there is a need to be able to identify one's interlocutors in such conversations, to be able to have faith that there is a stable referent for 'ori' and that even the positions 'ori' takes with which 'ori' might actually disagree are traced back to him. In other words, there is a different kind of authorship going on on MeFi, because the nature of writing is actually closer to that of conversation (apologies to Maurice Blanchot, but I don't think literature actually does constitute an Infinite Conversation). To go one step further: Foucault's later thought is clearly about how being a person (a subject) means being in community, the care of the self is both a set of personal acts and choices and a public set of such choices. Having a single pseudonym contributes to the ability to make those choices, having several actually limits those choices by diffusing them, which is how I read the entropy comment above.
Ethereal Bligh writes "The intiution that tells some of us that sock-puppet mefi accounts are wrong is the intuition that should be telling some of us that pseudonymous public personas are wrong. It's a deliberate evasion of responsibility."
I don't agree with this at all. The internet is not the polis, and in fact, there are clear indications that the polis has no idea what or how to think of the speech found on the internet. It's an emerging technology, and as such, generates emergencies of privacy, legal responsiblity, reprecussion and recriminations much more quickly than similar acts of speech in other realms. In fact, part of the problem is precisely speech acts as described by Austin, it's unclear to many (participants and observers) to what extent speech on the internet can and should be connected to other realms of life. In that climate, singular pseudonyms make it possible for many people to contribute who otherwise would not be able to. Sock puppets make it more possible for already anonymous individuals to litter a community space that they find important enough to wish to preserve their (other) good name.
For the record, I don't have much of a problem with sock puppets, although this conversation is changing my mind.
posted by OmieWise at 6:15 AM on July 17, 2005
What I'm concerned about though, looking at this and the other discussion a couple of threads down, is that we may not all be talking about the same thing.
For what it's worth, my take on 'sock-puppet' is this: a second (or other) user accountname created solely for the purpose of making comments that one does not wish to have associated with one's 'primary identity', for whatever reason, or created just to mess with people (trolling, grudgematching, whatever).
There've been puppet accounts forever, of course -- baby jesus, variations on zippity bop, mathowie's baby, and so on -- and where the username is a clear joke, and there's no confusion about the fact that it's all in fun, it's all good. These aren't the kind that undermine community, I don't think. Just the opposite, as obvious joke accounts and injokes (pancakes, anyone?) can build a sense of community, for better or worse, through shared humour opaque to 'outsiders'.
On preview, well said, OmieWise. (And my Foucault-bashing was just a highbrow mini-troll, I'll admit....)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:27 AM on July 17, 2005
For what it's worth, my take on 'sock-puppet' is this: a second (or other) user accountname created solely for the purpose of making comments that one does not wish to have associated with one's 'primary identity', for whatever reason, or created just to mess with people (trolling, grudgematching, whatever).
There've been puppet accounts forever, of course -- baby jesus, variations on zippity bop, mathowie's baby, and so on -- and where the username is a clear joke, and there's no confusion about the fact that it's all in fun, it's all good. These aren't the kind that undermine community, I don't think. Just the opposite, as obvious joke accounts and injokes (pancakes, anyone?) can build a sense of community, for better or worse, through shared humour opaque to 'outsiders'.
On preview, well said, OmieWise. (And my Foucault-bashing was just a highbrow mini-troll, I'll admit....)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:27 AM on July 17, 2005
I enjoy a good sockpuppet. I miss theatrical matriarch and mathowie's baby. I think this would be a lesser place if the baby jesus could not *weep* from time to time. I don't see that it's such a big deal. All this chest-pounding about "trust" and "accountability" seems overblown to me.
But then, I'm just one of the wonderchicken's sockpuppets, so pay me no mind.
On preview: I guess the wonderchicken and I are in more agreement than I thought (zippity BOP!), and OmieWise reminds me to praise ori's elegant post.
posted by languagehat at 6:34 AM on July 17, 2005
But then, I'm just one of the wonderchicken's sockpuppets, so pay me no mind.
On preview: I guess the wonderchicken and I are in more agreement than I thought (zippity BOP!), and OmieWise reminds me to praise ori's elegant post.
posted by languagehat at 6:34 AM on July 17, 2005
"My estimation is that most people here don't care whether people have sock puppets or not."
I disagree. I think a lot of people care, and will tend to dismiss (and, in the future, ignore) those who are discovered to be using sockpuppits. I really can't imagine an effective justification for such behavior.
That said, with starvros I don't think a technical solution is appropriate. I just think it's something that most people should (and do) frown upon.
"The intiution that tells some of us that sock-puppet mefi accounts are wrong is the intuition that should be telling some of us that pseudonymous public personas are wrong. It's a deliberate evasion of responsibility."
No. I owe a duty of fidelity and identity to this community, but not to all people everywhere. As a member of an online community, it's important to use one identity at a time. But real life is more than large enough to permit you to be different people in different communities. Which is important, because sometimes you're not sure which person you'll ultimately want to become, and a degree of anonymity can give you the freedom to try out something new.
posted by gd779 at 6:36 AM on July 17, 2005
I disagree. I think a lot of people care, and will tend to dismiss (and, in the future, ignore) those who are discovered to be using sockpuppits. I really can't imagine an effective justification for such behavior.
That said, with starvros I don't think a technical solution is appropriate. I just think it's something that most people should (and do) frown upon.
"The intiution that tells some of us that sock-puppet mefi accounts are wrong is the intuition that should be telling some of us that pseudonymous public personas are wrong. It's a deliberate evasion of responsibility."
No. I owe a duty of fidelity and identity to this community, but not to all people everywhere. As a member of an online community, it's important to use one identity at a time. But real life is more than large enough to permit you to be different people in different communities. Which is important, because sometimes you're not sure which person you'll ultimately want to become, and a degree of anonymity can give you the freedom to try out something new.
posted by gd779 at 6:36 AM on July 17, 2005
What I'm concerned about though, looking at this and the other discussion a couple of threads down, is that we may not all be talking about the same thing.
For what it's worth, my take on 'sock-puppet' is this: a second (or other) user accountname created solely for the purpose of making comments that one does not wish to have associated with one's 'primary identity', for whatever reason, or created just to mess with people (trolling, grudgematching, whatever).
Ah yes, we might not be talking about the same thing. Well I'm mainly thinking about anonymous AskMe responses.
I can't imagine saying anything that I wouldn't want linked to my MetaFilter avatar. Except that the avatar is linked to the real-life me, and I don't want some things linked to that. In sum, I think the way I can contribute the most to this community is with this account (linked to my real life), and another account I can use for comments that shouldn't be linked to my real life.
posted by grouse at 6:53 AM on July 17, 2005
For what it's worth, my take on 'sock-puppet' is this: a second (or other) user accountname created solely for the purpose of making comments that one does not wish to have associated with one's 'primary identity', for whatever reason, or created just to mess with people (trolling, grudgematching, whatever).
Ah yes, we might not be talking about the same thing. Well I'm mainly thinking about anonymous AskMe responses.
I can't imagine saying anything that I wouldn't want linked to my MetaFilter avatar. Except that the avatar is linked to the real-life me, and I don't want some things linked to that. In sum, I think the way I can contribute the most to this community is with this account (linked to my real life), and another account I can use for comments that shouldn't be linked to my real life.
posted by grouse at 6:53 AM on July 17, 2005
mathowie: My only question is simple: how on earth should sock-puppets be avoided?
I don't see any way that you can.
I think the best that can be hoped for is that the majority of users will respect your wishes (if clearly stated). Sure, some won't, but the ones that become a problem can be whacked as needed. It seems to me that it would be pointless to waste your time playing detective and I expect the policy would be largely unenforced ("don't ask, don't tell"), but at least it would be there so that on the rare occasions you have to break out the ban-hammer you have something on record to point them at.
There is no reason to ferret them all out, nobody hears a sock clad hand clapping in the woods.
I think it is a mistake to conflate the general anonymity built into the process with the creation of multiple anonymous accounts. The former creates a history that, in time, is fleshed out into a more complete persona. There is no reason I have to know an individuals name, address and credit rating to feel that I 'know' the person. The persona that I 'know' may be 180 degrees from the version his/her friends and family know, but it will be, at least, consistent with their actions on this site and that's good enough.
ori: Is a one-to-one correlation between usernames and users so necessary for community?
Yes. Despite the erudite prose above, the bottom line is that given the ease of making yourself anonymous on MeFi the only possible use for a sock puppet is to create chaos and sow confusion. Sock-puppet accounts are the antithesis of community and while I appreciate, or at least try to understand, the philosophical justifications for their existence, it might be better to keep in mind that this site is a community with a rather narrowly defined scope rather than an exploration of online identity.
on preview: grouse, I wouldn't view a separate account for Ask MetaFilter as a sock-puppet account. It's not so much how many accounts you have, but how you use them. Sock-puppetry is an old Usenet troll thing. Sock-puppets exist so people can argue with themselves, bolster unpopular opinions with 'supporters' or lend credence to the views of those who have been outed as asshats.
posted by cedar at 7:25 AM on July 17, 2005
I don't see any way that you can.
I think the best that can be hoped for is that the majority of users will respect your wishes (if clearly stated). Sure, some won't, but the ones that become a problem can be whacked as needed. It seems to me that it would be pointless to waste your time playing detective and I expect the policy would be largely unenforced ("don't ask, don't tell"), but at least it would be there so that on the rare occasions you have to break out the ban-hammer you have something on record to point them at.
There is no reason to ferret them all out, nobody hears a sock clad hand clapping in the woods.
I think it is a mistake to conflate the general anonymity built into the process with the creation of multiple anonymous accounts. The former creates a history that, in time, is fleshed out into a more complete persona. There is no reason I have to know an individuals name, address and credit rating to feel that I 'know' the person. The persona that I 'know' may be 180 degrees from the version his/her friends and family know, but it will be, at least, consistent with their actions on this site and that's good enough.
ori: Is a one-to-one correlation between usernames and users so necessary for community?
Yes. Despite the erudite prose above, the bottom line is that given the ease of making yourself anonymous on MeFi the only possible use for a sock puppet is to create chaos and sow confusion. Sock-puppet accounts are the antithesis of community and while I appreciate, or at least try to understand, the philosophical justifications for their existence, it might be better to keep in mind that this site is a community with a rather narrowly defined scope rather than an exploration of online identity.
on preview: grouse, I wouldn't view a separate account for Ask MetaFilter as a sock-puppet account. It's not so much how many accounts you have, but how you use them. Sock-puppetry is an old Usenet troll thing. Sock-puppets exist so people can argue with themselves, bolster unpopular opinions with 'supporters' or lend credence to the views of those who have been outed as asshats.
posted by cedar at 7:25 AM on July 17, 2005
What stav is saying, x5. The chicken is exactly right.
And what cedar just said, too.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:31 AM on July 17, 2005
And what cedar just said, too.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:31 AM on July 17, 2005
bardic writes "Je suis Dios."
Sure... I'm quite certain dios would never speakfreedomFrench on a public forum.
posted by clevershark at 7:39 AM on July 17, 2005
Sure... I'm quite certain dios would never speak
posted by clevershark at 7:39 AM on July 17, 2005
The problem here is clearly Matt Haughey, and his unwillingness to accomplish that which is impossible on any website with open registration.
posted by Official Mefi Head Complainer at 7:59 AM on July 17, 2005
posted by Official Mefi Head Complainer at 7:59 AM on July 17, 2005
My only question is simple: how on earth should sockpuppets be avoided? It's an open registration process...
I think the answer is right there. Before registrations were open, this was not a big problem. Is that really something that you aren't interested in considering, mathowie? Are you really so set on keeping registrations open that 'close registrations' can't be entertained as the solution to any problem?
posted by bingo at 8:01 AM on July 17, 2005
I think the answer is right there. Before registrations were open, this was not a big problem. Is that really something that you aren't interested in considering, mathowie? Are you really so set on keeping registrations open that 'close registrations' can't be entertained as the solution to any problem?
posted by bingo at 8:01 AM on July 17, 2005
No matter how transparent you make your MeFi persona and divulge your "real self" to the community, there's still a degree of anonymity behind every user name. But the more you participate in discussions and contribute to the MeFi society the more you are establishing a version of yourself. Many of the obvious sock puppets have made me laugh and I've never felt that they've threatened the sense of community here. I think the problem is the occasional MeFite that uses a sock puppet account to bully somebody without sullying their own "good name". That just makes them an ass intent on disrupting things. Ferret them out as they become apparent and boot the cowardly sock puppets. But I think you should give fair warning up front that that's what's going to happen. But I don't think a sockpuppet sweep-and-squash is needed.
It's a strange relationship that we have with so many people here that we've never met face to face, yet we feel know as friends, rivals, confidants, sparring partners, and/or just reliable conversationalists. Am I the only one that sees something online or in the news and thinks “I wonder what __________” is going to say about that?”
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 8:19 AM on July 17, 2005
It's a strange relationship that we have with so many people here that we've never met face to face, yet we feel know as friends, rivals, confidants, sparring partners, and/or just reliable conversationalists. Am I the only one that sees something online or in the news and thinks “I wonder what __________” is going to say about that?”
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 8:19 AM on July 17, 2005
Perhaps someone could create a directory of obvious sock puppets, for reference -- if by sockpuppetry we mean not anonymous or pseudonymous accounts, but those which betray primary motivations of contributing much more noise than signal.
Lush is spot on. There's nothing wrong with sock puppets per se excepting sock puppetry from those whose sole motivation is to poop in threads and leave. What about multiple accounts which contribute to AskMe? Are those sock puppets or something else?
posted by Rothko at 8:20 AM on July 17, 2005
Lush is spot on. There's nothing wrong with sock puppets per se excepting sock puppetry from those whose sole motivation is to poop in threads and leave. What about multiple accounts which contribute to AskMe? Are those sock puppets or something else?
posted by Rothko at 8:20 AM on July 17, 2005
grouse said:
>That's a bit weird, because how do we know you are *who* you say you are.
Feel free to send me an e-mail any time.
I feel like I've been able to contribute to this community a lot due to disclosing my identity in various ways. And you know, I kind of resent it when anonymous people say they don't want me to have the option of anonymity when it is harmful to me.
You know, in the same comment I said:
Now, I trust your userpage. I think it's rather informative and adds some depth.
Put me in the "I really resent selective quotations of my comments."
Re: contributions to the community; one would think they rise and fall based on their content, rather like a meritocracy -- unless you're specifically taking bio-informatics, at that point you have the cachet of identity to buttress your points. Although that's seen as questionable by some.
And I never, at any point, suggested (said or even implied) one should lose anonymity. I made the mistake, ONCE, of suggesting a method that was a bad idea. Because enough snooping from people around here could lead to revelations about identity.
In sum, I don't have a problem with your ideas, it's the invocation of irony within the limited surroundings of an online community. Especially when it relates to identity.
posted by gsb at 9:20 AM on July 17, 2005
>That's a bit weird, because how do we know you are *who* you say you are.
Feel free to send me an e-mail any time.
I feel like I've been able to contribute to this community a lot due to disclosing my identity in various ways. And you know, I kind of resent it when anonymous people say they don't want me to have the option of anonymity when it is harmful to me.
You know, in the same comment I said:
Now, I trust your userpage. I think it's rather informative and adds some depth.
Put me in the "I really resent selective quotations of my comments."
Re: contributions to the community; one would think they rise and fall based on their content, rather like a meritocracy -- unless you're specifically taking bio-informatics, at that point you have the cachet of identity to buttress your points. Although that's seen as questionable by some.
And I never, at any point, suggested (said or even implied) one should lose anonymity. I made the mistake, ONCE, of suggesting a method that was a bad idea. Because enough snooping from people around here could lead to revelations about identity.
In sum, I don't have a problem with your ideas, it's the invocation of irony within the limited surroundings of an online community. Especially when it relates to identity.
posted by gsb at 9:20 AM on July 17, 2005
No need to sweat <mathowio> to gain some type of fame.
No shame in my game cause I’ll always be the same.
Styles upon styles upon styles is what I have.
You wanna diss the <anusless> but you still don’t know the half.
I sport <fat socks and> sneakers to avoid a narrow path,
mess round with this and you'll catch the size of them.
Minds get flooded, ejaculation
Right on the <I EAT TAPES>
The <anonymous asshat> incognito, runs the cape.
Not the best, not the worst, and occasionally I curse
. . .
as I crack the monotone. <4nd PROFIT!>
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:25 AM on July 17, 2005
No shame in my game cause I’ll always be the same.
Styles upon styles upon styles is what I have.
You wanna diss the <anusless> but you still don’t know the half.
I sport <fat socks and> sneakers to avoid a narrow path,
mess round with this and you'll catch the size of them.
Minds get flooded, ejaculation
Right on the <I EAT TAPES>
The <anonymous asshat> incognito, runs the cape.
Not the best, not the worst, and occasionally I curse
. . .
as I crack the monotone. <4nd PROFIT!>
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:25 AM on July 17, 2005
Welcome to the never-ending witch hunt! Accusations of sock puppetry will soon outnumber even Karl Rove posts! Let a hundred flowers be cross-checked, let a hundred schools of though rat one another out.
posted by LarryC at 10:09 AM on July 17, 2005
posted by LarryC at 10:09 AM on July 17, 2005
LarryC writes "Welcome to the never-ending witch hunt! Accusations of sock puppetry will soon outnumber even Karl Rove posts!"
Only a sock puppet would say that!
posted by clevershark at 10:17 AM on July 17, 2005
Only a sock puppet would say that!
posted by clevershark at 10:17 AM on July 17, 2005
I'm bothered that my post has been dismissed by some as PoMo hogwash, when the Foucault quote was an afterthought. No one has bothered to comment on the historical existence of successful literary communities in which mask-donning was the norm (one of which I linked to here.)
As some people have pointed out, your mefi username, even if it is the only one associated with your person, is a kind of mask. You respond to certain kinds of threads, you joke or argue in a particular manner, and people start fleshing out an identity around your textual choices that only represent a tiny facet of yourself. Since this facet (and not the holistic "you", whatever that means) becomes recognizable to the community, people then tend to assume it completely, to play their own part (sometimes to a degree of self-caricature) to maintain their recognizeability.
In a large, text-based community like metafilter, the only way to keep track of the vast number of names that pop in and out is through stereotypes and gross simplification. Users are typecast. People associate a user with a particular kind of style, or an outspoken political position, and these "become" the username. The person behind it, in turn, adopts the role to maintain recognizeability. There are very few users who come to be known for a wealth of positions; to be one requires a commitment to metafilter that most people can't afford.
Even though I only have one account, and this account name corresponds with my real name, I can never escape the feeling that what 'ori' represents to the community reflects a series of implicit choices, made permanent for the sake of consistency, that reflect a very narrow aspect of myself--a very narrow aspect, even, of the kind of texts I can produce. This is very difficult to break out of, since the community resists having to revise typecasts. Imagine the reaction, to make an extreme example, if quonsar made a sincere and impassioned plea on a political topic. This is why, to me, creating a sock-puppet is tempting.
The various people who proclaim the abstract danger of sock-puppetry to the community without elaborating further seem to me to reflect the sentiment of people who want two clear and distinct gender roles, not out of malice so much as a fear of evolving paradigms of identity.
posted by ori at 10:54 AM on July 17, 2005
As some people have pointed out, your mefi username, even if it is the only one associated with your person, is a kind of mask. You respond to certain kinds of threads, you joke or argue in a particular manner, and people start fleshing out an identity around your textual choices that only represent a tiny facet of yourself. Since this facet (and not the holistic "you", whatever that means) becomes recognizable to the community, people then tend to assume it completely, to play their own part (sometimes to a degree of self-caricature) to maintain their recognizeability.
In a large, text-based community like metafilter, the only way to keep track of the vast number of names that pop in and out is through stereotypes and gross simplification. Users are typecast. People associate a user with a particular kind of style, or an outspoken political position, and these "become" the username. The person behind it, in turn, adopts the role to maintain recognizeability. There are very few users who come to be known for a wealth of positions; to be one requires a commitment to metafilter that most people can't afford.
Even though I only have one account, and this account name corresponds with my real name, I can never escape the feeling that what 'ori' represents to the community reflects a series of implicit choices, made permanent for the sake of consistency, that reflect a very narrow aspect of myself--a very narrow aspect, even, of the kind of texts I can produce. This is very difficult to break out of, since the community resists having to revise typecasts. Imagine the reaction, to make an extreme example, if quonsar made a sincere and impassioned plea on a political topic. This is why, to me, creating a sock-puppet is tempting.
The various people who proclaim the abstract danger of sock-puppetry to the community without elaborating further seem to me to reflect the sentiment of people who want two clear and distinct gender roles, not out of malice so much as a fear of evolving paradigms of identity.
posted by ori at 10:54 AM on July 17, 2005
your argument seems to be that it is preferable (simpler; easier to manage) to have simple caricatures rather than complex personalities, but you ignore the extra cost from the sheer number of different caricatures. why is it mentally more expensive to have two caricatures than accept that a single user can have two viewpoints?
in the real world, we are used to dealing with people as complex, multi-faceted individuals. why do you want to dumb the internet down? why not have complex multi-faceted people here too? seems to me that would be much more interesting that a much larger number of one-issue sockpuppets.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:12 AM on July 17, 2005
in the real world, we are used to dealing with people as complex, multi-faceted individuals. why do you want to dumb the internet down? why not have complex multi-faceted people here too? seems to me that would be much more interesting that a much larger number of one-issue sockpuppets.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:12 AM on July 17, 2005
I agree 100% with the wonderbird.
(1) Matt should state clearly that SPs are not cool. That is how we handle most other problems here -- no technical solutions required.
(2) Of course, of course, of course, some people will not obey Matt. But, on a case-by-case basis, if Matt thinks someone is just trolling/snarking with an SP, then Matt should enforce his rule. Again, case-by-case basis. Jokes = OK, special accounts for weird AskMe questions = OK. Trolling/axe-grinding with an SP = not OK. In other words, the same I-know-it-when-I-see it standard of enforcement that Matt already uses.
posted by Mid at 11:24 AM on July 17, 2005
(1) Matt should state clearly that SPs are not cool. That is how we handle most other problems here -- no technical solutions required.
(2) Of course, of course, of course, some people will not obey Matt. But, on a case-by-case basis, if Matt thinks someone is just trolling/snarking with an SP, then Matt should enforce his rule. Again, case-by-case basis. Jokes = OK, special accounts for weird AskMe questions = OK. Trolling/axe-grinding with an SP = not OK. In other words, the same I-know-it-when-I-see it standard of enforcement that Matt already uses.
posted by Mid at 11:24 AM on July 17, 2005
I believe stavros (who has given ample explanation as to why he is against sockpuppets) is correct when he clarified that he is against sock puppets when they are used for malice. Otherwise (for humor, to answer questions anonymously) they are fine.
I think the fluidity of identity is a positive attribute, and I can think of a few users who have a "a wealth of positions," especially if you factor out the false dichotomies of the current US political system (LEFT!! RIGHT!!! LEFT!!!! RIGHT!!!!!). You are right that some people are stereotyped, and that in many cases a user will seek to fulfill that role.
But more often, I have come across a comment from a user, and immediately pre-judged it (or worse, skipped it all together), only to find this pre-judgement was wrong, or my stereotype was off-base.
As a community of smart people, we should be striving for this kind of fluidity, which is more complex, and thus, more positive for the community, instead of the "easy way out" of paying $20 for four memberships that serve only to try and undermine the rapport and trust that has been built here over the last six years.
On preview: what Andrew Cook says.
posted by Quartermass at 11:27 AM on July 17, 2005
I think the fluidity of identity is a positive attribute, and I can think of a few users who have a "a wealth of positions," especially if you factor out the false dichotomies of the current US political system (LEFT!! RIGHT!!! LEFT!!!! RIGHT!!!!!). You are right that some people are stereotyped, and that in many cases a user will seek to fulfill that role.
But more often, I have come across a comment from a user, and immediately pre-judged it (or worse, skipped it all together), only to find this pre-judgement was wrong, or my stereotype was off-base.
As a community of smart people, we should be striving for this kind of fluidity, which is more complex, and thus, more positive for the community, instead of the "easy way out" of paying $20 for four memberships that serve only to try and undermine the rapport and trust that has been built here over the last six years.
On preview: what Andrew Cook says.
posted by Quartermass at 11:27 AM on July 17, 2005
Also, I've said this before, but:
The fact that some people feel the need to create sock puppets proves the point that we have a system of of identify and reputation on MeFi based on user names. The whole point of the puppet is to avoid that system.
posted by Mid at 11:33 AM on July 17, 2005
The fact that some people feel the need to create sock puppets proves the point that we have a system of of identify and reputation on MeFi based on user names. The whole point of the puppet is to avoid that system.
posted by Mid at 11:33 AM on July 17, 2005
Quartermass writes "But more often, I have come across a comment from a user, and immediately pre-judged it (or worse, skipped it all together), only to find this pre-judgement was wrong, or my stereotype was off-base."
Sure, but exactly where did that "prejudging" come from? It came from the experience of seeing countless threads in which said user formulated an opinion, and on the substance of the opinion put forward.
For example, if I see a 100-line post attributed to "quonsar", I'll know that something is very odd indeed...
posted by clevershark at 11:36 AM on July 17, 2005
Sure, but exactly where did that "prejudging" come from? It came from the experience of seeing countless threads in which said user formulated an opinion, and on the substance of the opinion put forward.
For example, if I see a 100-line post attributed to "quonsar", I'll know that something is very odd indeed...
posted by clevershark at 11:36 AM on July 17, 2005
andrew cooke writes "in the real world, we are used to dealing with people as complex, multi-faceted individuals."
We like to say that we do, but we really don't. What we DO learn to do, however, is to ignore the more offensive aspects and behaviours of those we choose to call our friends. That doesn't mean we're dealing with those aspects and behaviours.
posted by clevershark at 11:38 AM on July 17, 2005
We like to say that we do, but we really don't. What we DO learn to do, however, is to ignore the more offensive aspects and behaviours of those we choose to call our friends. That doesn't mean we're dealing with those aspects and behaviours.
posted by clevershark at 11:38 AM on July 17, 2005
but we really don't
don't what? what you wrote makes no gramatical sense. do you mean we are not used to dealing with real people? i deal with them quite often, myself. there's one sitting in the next room as i type this. what kind of world do you live in?
posted by andrew cooke at 11:45 AM on July 17, 2005
don't what? what you wrote makes no gramatical sense. do you mean we are not used to dealing with real people? i deal with them quite often, myself. there's one sitting in the next room as i type this. what kind of world do you live in?
posted by andrew cooke at 11:45 AM on July 17, 2005
ori writes "People associate a user with a particular kind of style, or an outspoken political position, and these 'become' the username. The person behind it, in turn, adopts the role to maintain recognizeability."
"People" do all sorts of things and it's unlikely to be so limited in scope as to warrant a blanket statement. These associations with usernames that you find perturbing are merely the online equivalent of what we [would] do in real life when we me[e]t a bunch of people. Some are more vocal, some insightful, some funny etc. That's their personality, whether virtual or IRL. If I regard someone as perpetually a fascist twat, then its my own fault for my categorizing them thus, not the fault of a one member/one username system.
That personality we associate with a username is something we value which is why sockpuppets have the capability of devaluing our intellectual/emotional investment in the process of our each building up the character profile of those members with whom we come in contact.
The reason why I don't like the idea of sockpuppets is because it seems that some people establish these accounts to abrogate responsibilities that they would otherwise face with their 'normal' personality as exhibited under the moniker of their normal username. They can provoke and insinuate and act in some devious form or another without having to readily submit to the usual ongoing reprehension that their regular username profile would face from the community.
It's like if I was in say a college class with you and you got to know me and maybe we had a bunch of disagreements and every so often I would don a disguise and act out in an abstractly hurtful manner towards you just to satisfy my egotistical and childish urges. Uncool. Of course. That's how I view the idea of sockpuppets. It circumvents normal ongoing relationship elaboration and makes me a little bit suspcious just occasionally as to the motives of a very small number of posters. It's confusing - rarely admittedly, but enough such that we are here in two threads redebating the issues.
As to whether people play up to the character they think they've created, well I reckon that happens a bit but again, doesn't that happen IRL? Don't people who are clowns play up to that selfcreated image? We'd all be certifiably psychotic if we were to attempt to demonstrate the varied aspects of our personalities here by adopting a different username for each. Insanity, IMdeluded perhapsO.
mathowie wonders how to stop this phenomenon - I agree with Lush:
"Perhaps someone could create a directory of obvious sock puppets, for reference.."
And then a link to such a page be put on the etc page. And it should include banned members who now have new usernames. Just so everyone is as clear as is reasonably possible given the stated constraints of proxies/IP/paypal.
And by the way ori, this was a great post and in the future, I'll read all your words and judge you on those as well as the memory you have imprinted on me today.
On preview....you all type too fast. If anyone made any of these points then I agree with them.
posted by peacay at 11:49 AM on July 17, 2005
"People" do all sorts of things and it's unlikely to be so limited in scope as to warrant a blanket statement. These associations with usernames that you find perturbing are merely the online equivalent of what we [would] do in real life when we me[e]t a bunch of people. Some are more vocal, some insightful, some funny etc. That's their personality, whether virtual or IRL. If I regard someone as perpetually a fascist twat, then its my own fault for my categorizing them thus, not the fault of a one member/one username system.
That personality we associate with a username is something we value which is why sockpuppets have the capability of devaluing our intellectual/emotional investment in the process of our each building up the character profile of those members with whom we come in contact.
The reason why I don't like the idea of sockpuppets is because it seems that some people establish these accounts to abrogate responsibilities that they would otherwise face with their 'normal' personality as exhibited under the moniker of their normal username. They can provoke and insinuate and act in some devious form or another without having to readily submit to the usual ongoing reprehension that their regular username profile would face from the community.
It's like if I was in say a college class with you and you got to know me and maybe we had a bunch of disagreements and every so often I would don a disguise and act out in an abstractly hurtful manner towards you just to satisfy my egotistical and childish urges. Uncool. Of course. That's how I view the idea of sockpuppets. It circumvents normal ongoing relationship elaboration and makes me a little bit suspcious just occasionally as to the motives of a very small number of posters. It's confusing - rarely admittedly, but enough such that we are here in two threads redebating the issues.
As to whether people play up to the character they think they've created, well I reckon that happens a bit but again, doesn't that happen IRL? Don't people who are clowns play up to that selfcreated image? We'd all be certifiably psychotic if we were to attempt to demonstrate the varied aspects of our personalities here by adopting a different username for each. Insanity, IMdeluded perhapsO.
mathowie wonders how to stop this phenomenon - I agree with Lush:
"Perhaps someone could create a directory of obvious sock puppets, for reference.."
And then a link to such a page be put on the etc page. And it should include banned members who now have new usernames. Just so everyone is as clear as is reasonably possible given the stated constraints of proxies/IP/paypal.
And by the way ori, this was a great post and in the future, I'll read all your words and judge you on those as well as the memory you have imprinted on me today.
On preview....you all type too fast. If anyone made any of these points then I agree with them.
posted by peacay at 11:49 AM on July 17, 2005
cedar said: grouse, I wouldn't view a separate account for Ask MetaFilter as a sock-puppet account. It's not so much how many accounts you have, but how you use them. Sock-puppetry is an old Usenet troll thing. Sock-puppets exist so people can argue with themselves, bolster unpopular opinions with 'supporters' or lend credence to the views of those who have been outed as asshats.
Ok, even I can agree with that. We are talking to cross purposes here. Pseudoanonymous AskMe good, sockpuppet trolling bad. And yes, using a second account to ask more than one AskMe question a week is also bad.
Also, "I feel like I've been able to contribute to this community a lot due to disclosing my identity in various ways. And you know, I kind of resent it when anonymous people say they don't want me to have the option of anonymity when it is harmful to me." was not meant to be a pointed remark at gsb at all, although I can see why he thought that. Sorry gsb.
posted by grouse at 11:53 AM on July 17, 2005
Ok, even I can agree with that. We are talking to cross purposes here. Pseudoanonymous AskMe good, sockpuppet trolling bad. And yes, using a second account to ask more than one AskMe question a week is also bad.
Also, "I feel like I've been able to contribute to this community a lot due to disclosing my identity in various ways. And you know, I kind of resent it when anonymous people say they don't want me to have the option of anonymity when it is harmful to me." was not meant to be a pointed remark at gsb at all, although I can see why he thought that. Sorry gsb.
posted by grouse at 11:53 AM on July 17, 2005
andrew cooke, I'd like a look at your world. In the "real" world as well on the internet, words condemn people. When a judge pronounces an innocement man as 'guilty' then he is no longer an innocement man. People get typecast as the result of miscommunication, assumptions, or plain old prejudice. The end result is, in fact, a form of censorship where somebody's words are dismissed because they are known to believe X, Y, and Z or to have done A, B and C. The wonderchicken's position that we are "known by words" is laughably idealistic. Most people here are known purely by the prejudices of others. This is the true nature of the gray's infamous "pile on" threads: they are trials by the mob. Witness AlexReynolds, y2karl, jenleigh and countless others who are rarely given the benefit of their words.
This 'typecasting' isn't a bad thing, necessarily, it's simply the way the human mind works. Nobody has the mental capacity to carefully deconstruct each and every post by the dozens of personalities on this site. Instead we read a few posts by the victim, or, worse, some posts by those we trust concerning the victim, and we form snap judgements. After that there's very little else to be said on the manner.
Sock puppetry, in and of itself, shouldn't be 'frowned upon'. For the same reason people need a 'fresh start' they may need for their words to be understood in a manner that's free of past interpretations. This is a good and valuable thing for the community. (And really, anybody who's ever glanced at a history book should understand the value of pseudonyms when publishing controversial opinions). Anything that helps people communicate their ideas and feelings is a good thing.
posted by nixerman at 12:13 PM on July 17, 2005
This 'typecasting' isn't a bad thing, necessarily, it's simply the way the human mind works. Nobody has the mental capacity to carefully deconstruct each and every post by the dozens of personalities on this site. Instead we read a few posts by the victim, or, worse, some posts by those we trust concerning the victim, and we form snap judgements. After that there's very little else to be said on the manner.
Sock puppetry, in and of itself, shouldn't be 'frowned upon'. For the same reason people need a 'fresh start' they may need for their words to be understood in a manner that's free of past interpretations. This is a good and valuable thing for the community. (And really, anybody who's ever glanced at a history book should understand the value of pseudonyms when publishing controversial opinions). Anything that helps people communicate their ideas and feelings is a good thing.
posted by nixerman at 12:13 PM on July 17, 2005
"For the same reason people need a 'fresh start' they may need for their words to be understood in a manner that's free of past interpretations. This is a good and valuable thing for the community."
Why? For most of human history and to the present, almost no one has been able to get a "fresh start" in the sense you describe. There are benefits in such a thing, but there are also costs. I simply don't understand why so many assume that it's obviously a good thing. It's a very American thing, that's true. I'm of the opinion that the relative anonymity of the modern, urban world is socially and psychology more destructive than it is constructive. As said above by others, having a socially sanctioned means of a discontinuity of identity encourages the bigoted stereotyping of other people that a "fresh start" is intended to avoid because in this scheme individuals are not multitudes, they are just individuals and people aren't forced to confront and acknowledge each other's complexity.
"(And really, anybody who's ever glanced at a history book should understand the value of pseudonyms when publishing controversial opinions)."
In the proper context, which is usually an unsually repressive social or political structure. Is it necessary to point out that the Internet as we know it is as unlike those historical contexts as can be imagined?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:26 PM on July 17, 2005
Why? For most of human history and to the present, almost no one has been able to get a "fresh start" in the sense you describe. There are benefits in such a thing, but there are also costs. I simply don't understand why so many assume that it's obviously a good thing. It's a very American thing, that's true. I'm of the opinion that the relative anonymity of the modern, urban world is socially and psychology more destructive than it is constructive. As said above by others, having a socially sanctioned means of a discontinuity of identity encourages the bigoted stereotyping of other people that a "fresh start" is intended to avoid because in this scheme individuals are not multitudes, they are just individuals and people aren't forced to confront and acknowledge each other's complexity.
"(And really, anybody who's ever glanced at a history book should understand the value of pseudonyms when publishing controversial opinions)."
In the proper context, which is usually an unsually repressive social or political structure. Is it necessary to point out that the Internet as we know it is as unlike those historical contexts as can be imagined?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:26 PM on July 17, 2005
The reason why I don't like the idea of sockpuppets is because it seems that some people establish these accounts to abrogate responsibilities that they would otherwise face with their 'normal' personality as exhibited under the moniker of their normal username. They can provoke and insinuate and act in some devious form or another without having to readily submit to the usual ongoing reprehension that their regular username profile would face from the community.
This is a valid concern but it doesn't carry any moral force. The community isn't always correct in its judgements. Some people may have very controversial and unpopular opinions on volatile topics. Should those people then be asked to bear the consequences of those opinions even if those consequences are completely unjust? I mean, really, have you seen how casually some members of Mefi throw around insults like 'racist'? What about the recent AskMe thread with the guy asking for help concerning his marriage (his wife wanted children, he didn't) where all but 3 or 4 people in the thread leaped to the worst conclusions and heaped insults on the guy?
A further and, perhaps even more important time, is that people are complex. You can hope and pray and take all manners of measures to make people "accountable" but if it's sombody intent to deceive you then they will deceive you. mathowie can ban sockpuppets, show IPs, and perhaps have us all mail in copies of how driver licenses in order but it won't mean a damn thing. People will still find a way to deceive you. This is, perhaps, the essence of a community. We trust each other without without requiring all sorts of verification and potential punishments. We give people the benefit of the doubt.
posted by nixerman at 12:28 PM on July 17, 2005
This is a valid concern but it doesn't carry any moral force. The community isn't always correct in its judgements. Some people may have very controversial and unpopular opinions on volatile topics. Should those people then be asked to bear the consequences of those opinions even if those consequences are completely unjust? I mean, really, have you seen how casually some members of Mefi throw around insults like 'racist'? What about the recent AskMe thread with the guy asking for help concerning his marriage (his wife wanted children, he didn't) where all but 3 or 4 people in the thread leaped to the worst conclusions and heaped insults on the guy?
A further and, perhaps even more important time, is that people are complex. You can hope and pray and take all manners of measures to make people "accountable" but if it's sombody intent to deceive you then they will deceive you. mathowie can ban sockpuppets, show IPs, and perhaps have us all mail in copies of how driver licenses in order but it won't mean a damn thing. People will still find a way to deceive you. This is, perhaps, the essence of a community. We trust each other without without requiring all sorts of verification and potential punishments. We give people the benefit of the doubt.
posted by nixerman at 12:28 PM on July 17, 2005
Sometimes a sock puppet account goes no further than a one-off joke, and a way to throw a fiver in the MeFi tip jar.
posted by windell at 12:40 PM on July 17, 2005
posted by windell at 12:40 PM on July 17, 2005
And yes, using a second account to ask more than one AskMe question a week is also bad.
I disagree very strongly with this. If you pay for a second account, you should be allowed to do with it what you wish, within the confines of responsible behavior that apply to all accounts, first, second—whichever.
posted by Rothko at 12:52 PM on July 17, 2005
I disagree very strongly with this. If you pay for a second account, you should be allowed to do with it what you wish, within the confines of responsible behavior that apply to all accounts, first, second—whichever.
posted by Rothko at 12:52 PM on July 17, 2005
Working from a sockpuppet now. Who is it an SP for? Mystyk. #1 can confirm the paypal info, and on the mystyk user page, there is a hidden line of text holding the UTF16 codes for these characters (so I don't have to remember them).I logged on to test if Matt had disabled all character entity usernames, or just the false quonsar. I created it to test whether the entities would work and also to open up more posts for AskMe, etc. in case I need them.
I see nothing wrong with SPs, as long as a user isn't using them as a cover, protecting them from association with their normal identities. That's why I'm willing to out myself so easily. If I have an AskMe post that I don't want linked to one name, I put it as an anon request, not under a different name. That said, if people desire anonymity between their MeFi self/selves and their real self, I can respect that easily.
It just so happens that I'm pretty open apout my identity in general. Not all are, but that doesn't make either outlook false. My page (the mystyk one) has at various points said detailed info, including full name, email, and phone number. That has since been trimmed down to avoid some problems over some posts I made relating to my work in Military Intelligence.
I hope that people can understand and respect my reasons for a sockpuppet, as I won't shy away from any statement made under either. I've made a pretty big fool of myself before, especially one folly of incorrect information from high-school on AskMe. Just take me for who I present, be open to the fact that I can change over time and that you might not know everything about me from a few paragraphs, and we'll get along fine.
posted by ハッカー at 1:08 PM on July 17, 2005
I see nothing wrong with SPs, as long as a user isn't using them as a cover, protecting them from association with their normal identities. That's why I'm willing to out myself so easily. If I have an AskMe post that I don't want linked to one name, I put it as an anon request, not under a different name. That said, if people desire anonymity between their MeFi self/selves and their real self, I can respect that easily.
It just so happens that I'm pretty open apout my identity in general. Not all are, but that doesn't make either outlook false. My page (the mystyk one) has at various points said detailed info, including full name, email, and phone number. That has since been trimmed down to avoid some problems over some posts I made relating to my work in Military Intelligence.
I hope that people can understand and respect my reasons for a sockpuppet, as I won't shy away from any statement made under either. I've made a pretty big fool of myself before, especially one folly of incorrect information from high-school on AskMe. Just take me for who I present, be open to the fact that I can change over time and that you might not know everything about me from a few paragraphs, and we'll get along fine.
posted by ハッカー at 1:08 PM on July 17, 2005
i heard mathowie is actually Karl Rove's sockpuppet. omgwtfbbq!
posted by keswick at 1:13 PM on July 17, 2005
posted by keswick at 1:13 PM on July 17, 2005
You make some very valid points nixerman.
I guess I'm convinced that the community policing method doesn't always manifest fairly but I'm not particularly convinced that SPs are often the answer.
And I don't see how SPs can stop stupid calls of racism or similar. Stupidity will out regardless.
If you think your question is going to be controversial, go the anonymous route.
If you need to post more than 1 question a week, email me or someone else - most people will be happy to oblige.
But you've provided food for thought.
posted by peacay at 1:24 PM on July 17, 2005
I guess I'm convinced that the community policing method doesn't always manifest fairly but I'm not particularly convinced that SPs are often the answer.
And I don't see how SPs can stop stupid calls of racism or similar. Stupidity will out regardless.
If you think your question is going to be controversial, go the anonymous route.
If you need to post more than 1 question a week, email me or someone else - most people will be happy to oblige.
But you've provided food for thought.
posted by peacay at 1:24 PM on July 17, 2005
ori writes "The various people who proclaim the abstract danger of sock-puppetry to the community without elaborating further seem to me to reflect the sentiment of people who want two clear and distinct gender roles, not out of malice so much as a fear of evolving paradigms of identity."
I certainly didn't think that your post was "PoMo hogwash," but I do think that this is. Your contention is that assuming multiple names is akin to a non-traditional gender performance? I don't get that at all, although it does clarify what seems to be latent in many of your comments, which is that performativity and the instability of identity that it allows make for some kind of liberating possiblity. I think that point is very open to debate. I'm no kind of essentialist, but to the extent that performances under different names multiply in a community where performance is the only means of identity in the first place, I think this actually weakens rather than stregthens the liberating potential of constructed identity. If another username is needed for a new kind of performance, all we get is more compartmentalization rather than less. Your characterization of quonsar is a good case in point, since I happen to think that he is effective (when he is effective) because he says things that are unexpected from quonsar. And I think that this is generally true here, that people often say unexpected things and are recognized for it. That's liberating. Having to assume another identity in order to say that thing is simply regressive. To put it another way, and in language I use very rarely here, subjects always exceed their own self-identity because they are constituted on an unknowable, the unconscious. To establish another identity in order to give voice to that unconscious, that lack of self-identity, is to misunderstand, fundamentally, the nature of the subject.
nixerman-I think your comment about people holding unpopular views is a good argument for maintaining identity under one username rather than registering multiples. For two reasons. 1) I often find that when I have to defend views others find unacceptable, and unlike me, I have not fully thought those views out. Sometimes I have, but other times I have failed to really examine them and their consequences. People who know me well, or even just my positions well, are sometimes able to convince me that my views are in fact inconsistent, which means I either have to re-evaluate my self image or the views. This is a healthy part of forming opinions and understanding new ideas. 2) Sometimes when I adopt and defend a view that friends etc find unpopular they are forced to admit that their own reactions are inconsistent with how they view me or themselves. They may be forced to change in some way in order to accomodate this new position. This is a healthy part of forming opinions and understanding new ideas. Neither of these outcomes is as likely when a sockpuppet is doing the talking.
Jokey/AskMe sockpuppets are not the kind I'm talking about.
posted by OmieWise at 1:44 PM on July 17, 2005
I certainly didn't think that your post was "PoMo hogwash," but I do think that this is. Your contention is that assuming multiple names is akin to a non-traditional gender performance? I don't get that at all, although it does clarify what seems to be latent in many of your comments, which is that performativity and the instability of identity that it allows make for some kind of liberating possiblity. I think that point is very open to debate. I'm no kind of essentialist, but to the extent that performances under different names multiply in a community where performance is the only means of identity in the first place, I think this actually weakens rather than stregthens the liberating potential of constructed identity. If another username is needed for a new kind of performance, all we get is more compartmentalization rather than less. Your characterization of quonsar is a good case in point, since I happen to think that he is effective (when he is effective) because he says things that are unexpected from quonsar. And I think that this is generally true here, that people often say unexpected things and are recognized for it. That's liberating. Having to assume another identity in order to say that thing is simply regressive. To put it another way, and in language I use very rarely here, subjects always exceed their own self-identity because they are constituted on an unknowable, the unconscious. To establish another identity in order to give voice to that unconscious, that lack of self-identity, is to misunderstand, fundamentally, the nature of the subject.
nixerman-I think your comment about people holding unpopular views is a good argument for maintaining identity under one username rather than registering multiples. For two reasons. 1) I often find that when I have to defend views others find unacceptable, and unlike me, I have not fully thought those views out. Sometimes I have, but other times I have failed to really examine them and their consequences. People who know me well, or even just my positions well, are sometimes able to convince me that my views are in fact inconsistent, which means I either have to re-evaluate my self image or the views. This is a healthy part of forming opinions and understanding new ideas. 2) Sometimes when I adopt and defend a view that friends etc find unpopular they are forced to admit that their own reactions are inconsistent with how they view me or themselves. They may be forced to change in some way in order to accomodate this new position. This is a healthy part of forming opinions and understanding new ideas. Neither of these outcomes is as likely when a sockpuppet is doing the talking.
Jokey/AskMe sockpuppets are not the kind I'm talking about.
posted by OmieWise at 1:44 PM on July 17, 2005
This thread has made me sad.
How ironic is it that EB's stunt (if in fact it was EB who created the quonsar clone, which seems likely but I'm not 100% sure of until he actually confirms it) has prompted Matt to close off the only mechanism for creating Unicode usernames, thereby making it impossible for the vast majority of the world's names to be used as Mefi usernames. Oh sure, if your name is John Smith, you can sign right up, but if you're ?? then you aren't welcome here.
Please fix the UTF-8 bug.
posted by 김치 at 1:56 PM on July 17, 2005
How ironic is it that EB's stunt (if in fact it was EB who created the quonsar clone, which seems likely but I'm not 100% sure of until he actually confirms it) has prompted Matt to close off the only mechanism for creating Unicode usernames, thereby making it impossible for the vast majority of the world's names to be used as Mefi usernames. Oh sure, if your name is John Smith, you can sign right up, but if you're ?? then you aren't welcome here.
Please fix the UTF-8 bug.
posted by 김치 at 1:56 PM on July 17, 2005
Sometimes a sock puppet is a way to make a new start. I am obviously the same individual as I was in my previous userform but as Konolia I am treated with a lot more respect. By the time people figured out who I used to be they had already gotten in the habit of treating me like a human being instead of a social problem. Win-win all around.
posted by konolia at 2:11 PM on July 17, 2005
posted by konolia at 2:11 PM on July 17, 2005
Damn it, I've lost my scorecard. How the hell am I going to know what's going on around here now?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:23 PM on July 17, 2005
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:23 PM on July 17, 2005
There have been a number of occasions where I have not written a comment because I've thought about the possible ramifications IRL. This is similar to thinking things and having the foresight not to say them aloud, with one major difference - stuff written on the net is close to permanent, while some verbal slip is unlikely ever to be recorded.
I can see that the desire to make the comment anyways might be stronger in others, and a sock puppet would be one way of doing that. If the comment is not noise, or trolling etc., I have no problem with the commentor not wanting to necessarily be associated with the post. There are plenty of thoughts/ideas that may be quite valid, just problematic from a practical real life perspective.
posted by birdsquared at 2:41 PM on July 17, 2005
I can see that the desire to make the comment anyways might be stronger in others, and a sock puppet would be one way of doing that. If the comment is not noise, or trolling etc., I have no problem with the commentor not wanting to necessarily be associated with the post. There are plenty of thoughts/ideas that may be quite valid, just problematic from a practical real life perspective.
posted by birdsquared at 2:41 PM on July 17, 2005
There've been puppet accounts forever, of course -- baby jesus, variations on zippity bop, mathowie's baby, and so on -- and where the username is a clear joke, and there's no confusion about the fact that it's all in fun, it's all good. These aren't the kind that undermine community, I don't think. Just the opposite, as obvious joke accounts and injokes (pancakes, anyone?) can build a sense of community, for better or worse, through shared humour opaque to 'outsiders'.
I enjoy a good sockpuppet. I miss theatrical matriarch and mathowie's baby. I think this would be a lesser place if the baby jesus could not *weep* from time to time.
Jokes = OK, special accounts for weird AskMe questions = OK.
Jokey/AskMe sockpuppets are not the kind I'm talking about.
Unless, of course the jokes fail to amuse, in which case they'll be throttled in their cribs, so to speak.
posted by timeistight at 2:45 PM on July 17, 2005
I enjoy a good sockpuppet. I miss theatrical matriarch and mathowie's baby. I think this would be a lesser place if the baby jesus could not *weep* from time to time.
Jokes = OK, special accounts for weird AskMe questions = OK.
Jokey/AskMe sockpuppets are not the kind I'm talking about.
Unless, of course the jokes fail to amuse, in which case they'll be throttled in their cribs, so to speak.
posted by timeistight at 2:45 PM on July 17, 2005
I think it might be time to take a closer look at the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
posted by Freen at 2:57 PM on July 17, 2005
posted by Freen at 2:57 PM on July 17, 2005
That is the beauty of a moderated space, the Internet Fuckwads get edited and eliminated. Anonymity can be abused, but it doesn't have to be. Lack of anonymity certainly doesn't guarantee good behavior. When anonymity is abused it can be addressed on a case by case basis. I am not opposed to sockpuppets as long as they behave themselves. Those that don't go poof and leave behind their five dollars. Of course, raising the price of admission to 25 dollars would probably hold down the influx of sockpuppets.
posted by caddis at 3:25 PM on July 17, 2005
posted by caddis at 3:25 PM on July 17, 2005
TisT: there's one-off jokes and then there's pounding-a-sort-of-funny-notion-deep-into-the-earth jokes.
On preview: $25 is a great idea.
posted by Mid at 3:28 PM on July 17, 2005
On preview: $25 is a great idea.
posted by Mid at 3:28 PM on July 17, 2005
The intention driving an identity's use is what makes the difference between an alias and a sockpuppet. People who decide to drop one identity in favor of another are fleshing out the new identity with the force of their effort and their personality. People who decide to take up a new identity, flesh it out, and use it to debate unpopular positions or argue or make a theory look loony are creating sockpuppets. And in the time I've been reading MetaFilter, the most unfortunate thing I've seen is someone trying to get an honest chance to change and being denied due to the prejudice associated with their identity, the knowledge that they have created a new identity, or the association between the new and the old.
Sockpuppets avoid the 'system of identity and reputation' referred to by Mid. The change from one username to another does not. Eventually, an old hand with a new handle will be enjoyed and respected (or hated and derided) whether we know who they were or not.
Ori, you said that you don't see how sockpuppetry subverts community. I think nixerman touched briefly on the reason for that: 'This is, perhaps, the essence of a community. We trust each other without without requiring all sorts of verification and potential punishments. We give people the benefit of the doubt.' Sockpuppetry subverts community because trust has to be invested before 'community' (as opposed to a community) occurs. If we are all just wondering how much this person or that can be relied upon, there is no chance to feel community. We get to not think about whether X user or Y user can be trusted because we are familiar with them. It requires a set of opinions and judgments about everyone that can't be formed without some degree of security and reliability. (And as an aside, that's why I think people who want to rehabilitate their image should be given that chance without having to resort to a new username. Sometimes that's unrealistic. And in those cases they should be able to make the switch, even openly, and the grace of admitting they would like things to go better should be sufficient reason to extend our graciousness in return.)
posted by rebirtha at 4:05 PM on July 17, 2005
Sockpuppets avoid the 'system of identity and reputation' referred to by Mid. The change from one username to another does not. Eventually, an old hand with a new handle will be enjoyed and respected (or hated and derided) whether we know who they were or not.
Ori, you said that you don't see how sockpuppetry subverts community. I think nixerman touched briefly on the reason for that: 'This is, perhaps, the essence of a community. We trust each other without without requiring all sorts of verification and potential punishments. We give people the benefit of the doubt.' Sockpuppetry subverts community because trust has to be invested before 'community' (as opposed to a community) occurs. If we are all just wondering how much this person or that can be relied upon, there is no chance to feel community. We get to not think about whether X user or Y user can be trusted because we are familiar with them. It requires a set of opinions and judgments about everyone that can't be formed without some degree of security and reliability. (And as an aside, that's why I think people who want to rehabilitate their image should be given that chance without having to resort to a new username. Sometimes that's unrealistic. And in those cases they should be able to make the switch, even openly, and the grace of admitting they would like things to go better should be sufficient reason to extend our graciousness in return.)
posted by rebirtha at 4:05 PM on July 17, 2005
I think people who want to rehabilitate their image should be given that chance without having to resort to a new username. Sometimes that's unrealistic.
Sometimes? People have long memories, even longer when you can just pull up a five year old comment.
posted by caddis at 4:12 PM on July 17, 2005
Sometimes? People have long memories, even longer when you can just pull up a five year old comment.
posted by caddis at 4:12 PM on July 17, 2005
Well sure, caddis, but people's long memories and ability to reach back to what's been said to quote it verbatim doesn't preclude their ability to decide other people ought to have another chance. People ought to be wise to the fact that their remarks will stay around for an indefinite period-- true-- but that is no automatic free pass to relegate someone to this or that status in cases when it's clear they are willing to make changes. It reminds me of when I went through my mother's things when I was something like eight. For five years after that she'd dredge that up and toss it at me in every argument we had, long after she'd chewed out all its goodness. Some people seem to want to keep going back to a crappy way of interacting, and for them they're making their own luck. But for people who want to make changes, it seems questionable judgement to deny them.
posted by rebirtha at 4:31 PM on July 17, 2005
posted by rebirtha at 4:31 PM on July 17, 2005
The wonderchicken's position that we are "known by words" is laughably idealistic. Most people here are known purely by the prejudices of others.
I'm actually shocked at this. How low in your estimation most of us must be, to believe that to be true. Ah well.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:13 PM on July 17, 2005
I'm actually shocked at this. How low in your estimation most of us must be, to believe that to be true. Ah well.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:13 PM on July 17, 2005
I barely have enough ideas and wit to populate one personality, I can't afford any attenuation.
I think the occasional jokey sock puppets are OK; also, the occasional rebirths or fresh starts. But by and large, I agree with our illustrious wonderchicken - this place is enough or a grand central station, I value having some constancy.
I like the idea of raising the price of admission - maybe $25 is too much, $10 might do it. That would solve two problems that I see - slow the floodgates of new members a bit and reduce the impulsive creation of sock puppets. Please note: I love new members but I favor the idea of having rest periods now and then to assimilate a bit.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:48 PM on July 17, 2005
I think the occasional jokey sock puppets are OK; also, the occasional rebirths or fresh starts. But by and large, I agree with our illustrious wonderchicken - this place is enough or a grand central station, I value having some constancy.
I like the idea of raising the price of admission - maybe $25 is too much, $10 might do it. That would solve two problems that I see - slow the floodgates of new members a bit and reduce the impulsive creation of sock puppets. Please note: I love new members but I favor the idea of having rest periods now and then to assimilate a bit.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:48 PM on July 17, 2005
I completely agree with ???? (whom I much prefer to that boring mystyk): Matt shouldn't have disabled entities for usernames. It was ridiculous overkill for EB's one-off joke—for pete's sake, you can see by mousing over the username it's a different person, and Matt could simply freeze all such accounts. If he's going to disable entities, he should immediately get to work on fixing the damn preview bug and making it possible for people to use non-Latin-alphabet characters. Otherwise, it sure looks like only Anglo-Americans are welcome here.
posted by languagehat at 7:12 AM on July 18, 2005
posted by languagehat at 7:12 AM on July 18, 2005
Dammit. See what I mean? This is ridiculous.
posted by languagehat at 7:13 AM on July 18, 2005
posted by languagehat at 7:13 AM on July 18, 2005
I made a proposal a while back that there be a delay (say a 31 days) betweeen requesting your userID and actually paying for it and therefor being able to use it. I think it'd cut down on the number of people who join impulsively, post a dozen comments, and then disappear into the ether. Plus you'd really have to want to make that joke and you wouldn't be able to make thread specific userID jokes. So stuff like JRun and baby would still make it through. It may also encourage noobs to lurk around a bit and it would raise the bar again for front page spammers.
posted by Mitheral at 7:21 AM on July 18, 2005
posted by Mitheral at 7:21 AM on July 18, 2005
Yeah, it certainly was me that did it. Also, I emailed Matt immediately afterwards and flagged my comment. Matt and I then corresponded.
It was the combination of being able to be faux-quonsar, be clever, and point out that sooner or later this was going to be a serious problem that made it irresistable to me. And the comments, of course, along with the profile, made it clear what was done and who did it.
If someone wanted to cause a lot of trouble using this spoof, with some care they probably could. And, again, it was going to happen sooner or later.
I said to Matt that I was 120% in favor of non-latin usernames and general support, but allowing entities in usernames probably wasn't workable. There's other weird things people could do that haven't been done.
Still, an alternative to banning entities in usernames would be to put the usernumber alongside the name in the attribution line, and then having a strong social stigma attached to duplicating in some way usernames. By mixing entities and regular characters, there's a huge number of possibilities for spoofing names in this way. My faux-quonsar used all entities as hex values.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:19 AM on July 18, 2005
It was the combination of being able to be faux-quonsar, be clever, and point out that sooner or later this was going to be a serious problem that made it irresistable to me. And the comments, of course, along with the profile, made it clear what was done and who did it.
If someone wanted to cause a lot of trouble using this spoof, with some care they probably could. And, again, it was going to happen sooner or later.
I said to Matt that I was 120% in favor of non-latin usernames and general support, but allowing entities in usernames probably wasn't workable. There's other weird things people could do that haven't been done.
Still, an alternative to banning entities in usernames would be to put the usernumber alongside the name in the attribution line, and then having a strong social stigma attached to duplicating in some way usernames. By mixing entities and regular characters, there's a huge number of possibilities for spoofing names in this way. My faux-quonsar used all entities as hex values.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:19 AM on July 18, 2005
I made a proposal a while back that there be a delay (say a 31 days) betweeen requesting your userID and actually paying for it and therefor being able to use it. I think it'd cut down on the number of people who join impulsively, post a dozen comments, and then disappear into the ether.
Unfortunately, when a MeFi or AskMeFi thread pops up and a lurker has relevant information, they wouldn't be able to post said information for 31 days. And Matt used to say all the time that when signups were closed, people were allowed in anyway because they had useful information to contribute.
Sure, you lock out random, impetuous noise, but you also lock out impulsive and relevant great signals at the same time. Don't cut off your nose in spite of your face. New members are the lifeblood of this community. Because they lack the bitterness inherent with people who have been here for a while; and when paying 5 bucks, unless your only purpose was to ask a question, chances are you probably have something interesting to contribute.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:23 AM on July 18, 2005
Unfortunately, when a MeFi or AskMeFi thread pops up and a lurker has relevant information, they wouldn't be able to post said information for 31 days. And Matt used to say all the time that when signups were closed, people were allowed in anyway because they had useful information to contribute.
Sure, you lock out random, impetuous noise, but you also lock out impulsive and relevant great signals at the same time. Don't cut off your nose in spite of your face. New members are the lifeblood of this community. Because they lack the bitterness inherent with people who have been here for a while; and when paying 5 bucks, unless your only purpose was to ask a question, chances are you probably have something interesting to contribute.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:23 AM on July 18, 2005
Also, there have been several instances where the subject of a post registered so they could join the thread. That's cool and would no longer be possible.
I think the general problem of pseudoanonymous abuse (of whatever kind or mechanism) has one other potential for danger: Matt gets the dreaded Attorney Letter demanding disclosure of user information.
The simple answer is be nice, but that isn't enough; misunderstandings happen all the time. Nobody is ever really anonymous. That's probably the root issue.
posted by warbaby at 3:36 PM on July 18, 2005
I think the general problem of pseudoanonymous abuse (of whatever kind or mechanism) has one other potential for danger: Matt gets the dreaded Attorney Letter demanding disclosure of user information.
The simple answer is be nice, but that isn't enough; misunderstandings happen all the time. Nobody is ever really anonymous. That's probably the root issue.
posted by warbaby at 3:36 PM on July 18, 2005
Otherwise, it sure looks like only Anglo-Americans are welcome here.
yeah, and that wouldn't totally be the case.
*snicker*
posted by matteo at 3:40 PM on July 18, 2005
yeah, and that wouldn't totally be the case.
*snicker*
posted by matteo at 3:40 PM on July 18, 2005
"yeah, and that wouldn't totally be the case.
*snicker*"
Yeah, so go the hell away. Or stop snickering.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:59 PM on July 18, 2005
*snicker*"
Yeah, so go the hell away. Or stop snickering.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:59 PM on July 18, 2005
warbaby writes "Also, there have been several instances where the subject of a post registered so they could join the thread. That's cool and would no longer be possible."
I think Matt had a pretty clear policy of letting such people in when they needed or wanted to comment. I could be wrong.
posted by OmieWise at 12:59 PM on July 19, 2005
I think Matt had a pretty clear policy of letting such people in when they needed or wanted to comment. I could be wrong.
posted by OmieWise at 12:59 PM on July 19, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Walt Whitman, Song of Myself
I multiplied myself to feel myself,
To feel myself I had to feel everything,
I overflowed, I did nothing but spill out,
I undressed, I yielded,
And in each corner of my soul there's an altar to a different god.
Alvaro de Campos, sock-puppet.
History adds that before or after dying he found himself in the presence of God and told Him: "I who have been so many men in vain want to be one and myself." The voice of the Lord answered from a whirl-wind: "Neither am I anyone; I have dreamt the world as you dreamt your work, my Shakespeare, and among the forms in my dream are you, who like myself are many and no one."
Jorge Luis Borges, "Everything and Nothing".
My deviation from popular opinion is adequately expressed by the phrase "rotation of crops." There might seem to be an ambiguity in this phrase, and if I were to find room in this phrase for a desgination of the ordinary method I would have to say that rotation of crops consists in continually changing the soil. But the farmer does not use the expression in this way. For a moment, however, I will use it in this way to discuss the rotation of crops that depends upon the boundless infinity of change, its boundless dimension.
'A', sock-puppet.
I think that, as our society changes, at the very moment when it is in the process of changing, the author function will disappear, and in such a manner that fiction and its polysemous texts will once again function according to another mode, but still with a system of constraint--one which will no longer be the author, but which will have to be determined, or perhaps, experienced.
All discourse, whatever their status, form, value, and whatever the treatment to which they will be subjected, would then develop in the anonymity of a murmur. We would no longer hear the questions that have been rehashed for so long: Who really spoke? Is it really he and not someone else? With what authenticity or originality? And what part of his deepest self did he express in his discourse? Instead, there would be other questions, like these: What are the modes of existence of this discourse? Where has it been used, how can it circulate, and who can appropriate it for himself? What are the places in it where there is room for possible subjects? Who can assume these various subject functions? And behind all these questions, we would hear hardly anything but the stirring of an indifference: What difference does it make who is speaking?
Michel Foucault
Be what I think? But I think of being so many things!
Alvaro de Campos.
This is open-ended.
posted by ori at 12:18 AM on July 17, 2005 [1 favorite]