tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Why not real names?)

Asaf Karagila comments on "Why not real names?" (18826)

2012-03-26T22:48:44-07:00

@Daniel, allow me to quote Futurama on that:

Bender: Please, I'm scared.
Sal: We're all scared, it's the human condition. Why do you thinks I put on this tough-guy façade?

darijgrinberg comments on "Why not real names?" (18825)

2012-03-26T22:10:04-07:00

horus is stating true things (yes, there are political dangers to open scientific activity across different societies, and even where there are no political ones, there can still be financial and social ones). But I think the current policy on MathOverflow - anonymous posting is being socially discouraged but not persecuted or penalized - is not detrimental to the kind of speech horus is trying to protect. Those who know they need to get the word out will hardly be deterred by a generic mistrust towards anonymous posters, as long as the actual quality of the posting is a much stronger factor in its evaluation by others than the anonymity of its author.

This thread did contain some proposals to disallow pseudonyms, but they are pretty much out of the discussion now. Correct me if I am wrong (I hope not).

Scott Morrison comments on "Why not real names?" (18824)

2012-03-26T21:57:25-07:00

Interesting stuff!

I'm still pretty steadfast in my plan to encourage people to use their real names, but I think we're doing this in a fashion that is completely compatible with allowing access for people who are worried about their online identity.

We've never restricted access to good-faith anonymous users. I really do need to say "good-faith"; when an anonymous user misbehaves we usually have very little patience. But for this, anonymous also means not providing an email address visible only to the moderators. When an email address is available, we nearly always try to write an email explaining our concerns, if it's not obvious trolling.

If you're really worried about participating in online mathematics because of your repressive local government, drop me a line. (PGP public key on my website, along with other contact details.) I might well be happy to set up a very respectable looking tunnel for you, if I'm convinced you're kosher.

horus comments on "Why not real names?" (18818)

2012-03-26T18:05:15-07:00

@Ryan There are some countries in which being a woman and studying mathematics would be subversive. Or being a member of a particular religion would make one subject to persecution. I believe MO should be enabling these people to participate.

Of course, this whole thread is hypothetical since MO has no plan to implement an identity check on all of its users; however, some people were suggesting there were no good reasons for people to remain anonymous. Some people have good reasons. Also, it is hypothetical today, but it seems plausible MO could implement a referral feature or some other method to restrict access (especially on days that it is overwhelmed by spam posts).

@Yemon and Daniel. I was not suggesting MO should be solving the problems of the world, only that it should be welcoming of anonymous users. The cost of welcoming anonymous users is... you get some annoying users (who may or may not have been annoying if they were using their real name), and you don't know who you are talking to some of the time. This seems like a very small cost compared to providing an avenue to engage in maths for people who might not be able to do so otherwise (or might be putting themselves or their family at real risk if they are not careful with their identity). It isn't likely that people of this background are going to provide great mathematical breakthroughs from their involvement on MO. However, if MO gives talented mathematicians an opportunity to participate in mathematical discourse that would otherwise be inaccessible to them, then it has had a positive impact. A single mathematics website is not going to address the problems of the world, but it can save some individuals from isolation and give them a voice in the mathematical conversations here. Providing this opportunity to even a handful is a great good.

Daniel Moskovich comments on "Why not real names?" (18814)

2012-03-26T16:55:08-07:00

Regarding the personal-safety problem mentioned by Horus: Fear becomes internalized.

I will explain using a personal anecdote. In city X, there had been a number of physical attacks against Jews. Person A was a religious Jew, who sat next to me in synagogue every morning. But when I saw him in the university, he pretended not to know who I was. When I would come into his office, he would pull down the blinds. Why? Because I wear a kippa in public, and he was afraid he would be identified as Jewish. There was no objective danger inside the university or inside his office, and it was triviality itself to figure out that he was Jewish- yet the fear had become internalized, and was no longer correlated with a rational risk-assessment process.

This is how I interpret Horus's comment. It seems a fair point. But I don't think it should have any influence on MO policy- basically I agree with Ryan and with Yemon.

Ryan Budney comments on "Why not real names?" (18805)

2012-03-26T04:47:44-07:00

@Yemon, sure but I suppose the 3rd and 4th paragraphs are a concern about a non-manifest problem. Anonymity is allowed on MO, it's just not generally encouraged. I think it's quite clear from the thread that not only would it be functionally-impossible for us to demand real names, the desire for a uniform real-names-only policy just isn't present in the community.

That said, I think if you ask a mathematically-sophisticated question on MO, the likelyhood of the authorities determining your identity (if they were to try) is extremely high, regardless of the lengths you go to protect your identity. Mathematical literacy is very low across the entire planet, so expressing literacy in a public forum makes it extremely likely that you will be identified in a short amount of time. Expressing a particular type of mathematical proclivity (unless it's intentional mis-direction) is practically a red flag "my name is X, my address is Y, I went to university Z".

Yemon Choi comments on "Why not real names?" (18799)

2012-03-25T22:15:43-07:00

Ryan, while I sympathise with your broad point, I feel the wording of your response comes over - I'm sure unintendedly - as dismissive towards the points raised in horus's 3rd and 4th paragraphs. The whole point is that in certain places, it is remarkably easy to be found engaging in what the Powers That Be deem to be subversive activity. It is perfectly justifiable to worry about being flagged for "subversive activity" even if one is not intending to be "subversive in one's home country".

"If you've done nothing wrong, you have little to worry about" is a dangerous line, which I hope we're not espousing.

That said: I personally I think MO should discourage anonymity, on the grounds that it isn't the place to fix the many and varied non-mathematical iniquities of the world.

Ryan Budney comments on "Why not real names?" (18798)

2012-03-25T20:05:17-07:00

@horus, that's a fair point, but in response, MO isn't here to promote subversive activities around the world. So I don't think we should be particularly sensitive to that kind of issue. If you're subversive in your home country, it's up to you to do it effectively and you shouldn't be asking a global mathematics community to enable you.

horus comments on "Why not real names?" (18797)

2012-03-25T19:11:49-07:00

Sorry to revive a long dormant thread, but I read through the history with interest and it seemed to me the most important reason for anonymity was neglected: avoidance of persecution.

It is not likely someone would be persecuted for contributing to mathoverflow specifically, but if I live in a country with an oppressive government and use the same computer for activities that are considered subversive, having any activity on this computer tied to my name could put me in jeopardy. Even those of you living in "liberal western democracies" could have reasons to fear your own internal securities agencies if you were to use the same computer for participating in islamic forums, or researching certain types of physics or chemistry that could be used in explosives. Or more innocuously, if you used the same computer to surf pornography, you might not want your real name tied to that activity.

Even if you do not use the same computer for anything that might be considered subversive by anyone, if it is a public or semi-public computer used by other people, *their* activity could put you at risk. Say I log on to mathoverflow from this public computer, and someone who is involved in such activities also uses this computer for their activities at other times. The government determines this undesirable activity is coming from this particular internet cafe or whatever, seizes the machine, and tries to figure out who was using it. My name comes up as having visited a mathematics site immediately before or after someone visited a forum and participated in some illicit discussion. My government's police may well decide I am worthy of investigation or interrogation or worse.

There are very good reasons for the protection of people's anonymity. It is an important issue that should not be trivialized. You'll recall many Chinese dissidents are still in prison today because Yahoo! revealed their identities to the Chinese government. This was not an isolated incident, and even in "free" countries, security agencies are certainly working around the clock to tie user activity on some sites to people's real names. I am not sure that I trust them to do so in an error-free way (even though I am not involved in anything remotely illicit.)

Angelo comments on "Why not real names?" (17775)

2011-12-20T08:41:11-08:00

To Storkle: I have very strict rules, but often I forget them.

Storkle comments on "Why not real names?" (17774)

2011-12-20T07:54:35-08:00

Dear Angelo,

By random chance, I happened to notice that you answered the question

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/83949/the-composition-of-derived-functors-commutation-fails-hazardly

from a user "sasha" who seems to me to be, for all intents and purposes, anonymous. I'm wondering what it is about this case that prompted your reply. Of course, being an anonymous questioner myself, perhaps I have no reasonable expectation of a reply here!

Best, Storkle

Edit: There is also your relatively recent answer to the user "36min", but I have to admit that I don't see a pattern so I'm still curious.

Cam McLeman comments on "Why not real names?" (13479)

2011-02-23T05:56:25-08:00

In the spirit of "Whose Line is it Anyway" (the British one, of course), I award everyone in this thread a +1 for an informative and entertaining read.

Mariano comments on "Why not real names?" (13471)

2011-02-22T14:05:52-08:00

Wow. There is patent material there, Willie!

WillieWong comments on "Why not real names?" (13470)

2011-02-22T14:04:27-08:00

@Mariano: or... behold! The Moebius name tag! (Incidentally, there must be an explanation as to why with one of those worn around the neck, the tendency is for the tag to turn so it faces my stomach.)

Mariano comments on "Why not real names?" (13466)

2011-02-22T12:30:47-08:00

While we are on the subject, I think we as an Organization should also promote name tags with the names on the two sides, specially when it is one of those worn around the neck.

an_mo_user comments on "Why not real names?" (13465)

2011-02-22T11:53:10-08:00

Andrew Stacey, yes I can understand all that. Still, as far as I understand, MO is mainly a Question and Answer site, not a networkinng, community building, alike site. And, while it is certainly fine if there is a somewhat closely linked community of core users I would also like to point out the risk that if the core community is too strongly linked it can get more and more difficult over time for new users to actually join (in particular if they don't know, or are known too, anybody in the core-group). At the moment, I do not feel this is yet a problem, however I feel there are some tendencies in this direction and this could get worse over time.

Since you (implictly) asked: I see MO as a site which I visit frequently (since some time essentially daily) as there are interesting things to read and I like the general idea, and if I see a question that I can answer (with a reasonable amount of effort), then I do so. Happened around 10 times so far; mainly 'true' answers, so almost all non-soft and mostly not the n+1 answer. Occassionally I leave a comment here and there if I think it could be helpful or I am curious to get clarification on something. So far I did not ask a question.

WillieWong comments on "Why not real names?" (13453)

2011-02-22T04:23:25-08:00

@Andrew: I find it curious that you consider a conference in which the organizers decided that participants shouldn't be trusted with safety pins is "higher class" :)

Andrew Stacey comments on "Why not real names?" (13451)

2011-02-22T03:15:43-08:00

Ah, you obviously go to a higher class of conference than me. I usually get the safety-pin type name badges.

WillieWong comments on "Why not real names?" (13450)

2011-02-22T02:41:43-08:00

As an aside: I do religiously wear name tags. So if you see a waterfowl not wearing name-tags at a conference, that's probably not me.

@Andrew: a propos garments, are you talking about sticky name-tags? Plastic sleeves with a clip on the back works wonders with a shirt with breast-pockets.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Why not real names?" (13448)

2011-02-22T01:47:47-08:00

To an_mo_user: in your specific scenario then I agree that the pseudonymous user is providing more information than the named one. However, it is, for me, useless information! I never click through to someone's profile to see if they have more information there that might help me frame an answer (I sometimes do to see whether or not I should take their answer seriously). So as far as I'm concerned, the named user still ranks slightly higher than the pseudonymous user.

But the situation I'm describing is about interacting with a person through more than one question/answer to build up a picture of them. There, the information in the profile becomes less and less important (even assuming that I read it). There are professors who rank quite low in my (admittedly skewed) ranking, and graduates, even undergraduates, who rank quite highly. My ranking is used purely as additional information to decide how much time to invest in reading something that they have posted.

It's like that game where someone hides money in two boxes, but different amounts depending on whether they think you'll take both boxes or just one. If playing the game once, the strategy is to take both boxes. If playing the game many times, the strategy is to take just one. If you intend to view MO as a place to go, get what you want, and run, then fine but don't expect me to bother too much about you. If you intend to view MO as a place to stay and join in, then that's great, but it would help me to have a memorable label to connect your different contributions so that I better know who you are and can better help you.

(PS: I find that nametags ruin many a garment and don't wear them unless sticky tape is provided. Though if someone sent me an MO t-shirt for free, I'd wear that solely at conferences and stick all my nametags to it.)

Pete L. Clark comments on "Why not real names?" (13442)

2011-02-21T20:56:13-08:00

I do not religiously wear nametags, but my social skills are so high that if I meet you for the first time, there is a very good chance that one of the first things I'll say is, "Hi, I'm Pete Clark. I don't think we've met: you are...?"

Now I know that you cannot count on just any mathematician to do this, but what can I say? I'm a pretty exceptional guy.

Mariano comments on "Why not real names?" (13439)

2011-02-21T18:50:08-08:00

Now that is something we can make a rule of! Let us decree that people MUST use nametags at conferences.

By the power invested upon us.

Mark Meckes comments on "Why not real names?" (13438)

2011-02-21T17:12:52-08:00

I can't speak for Andrew, but at the conferences I go to nametags are provided but frequently not worn.

Gerry Myerson comments on "Why not real names?" (13436)

2011-02-21T16:27:28-08:00

"I feel that I would know David Speyer at a conference, but I could be talking to Pete Clark for half an hour before realising who he was." Andrew, don't they use nametags at the conferences you go to?

an_mo_user comments on "Why not real names?" (13432)

2011-02-21T15:47:25-08:00

Bill Johnson, perhaps I did not describe carefully enough the scenario I mean. I believe there is no disagreement regarding this point; certainly I agree it is helpful to know somebody is an undergraduate. Let me make my example a bit more explicit and extreme (originally I meant both leave About Me blank).

Pseudonym-User:
Name: Donald Duck; and in the About Me box it says, eg: 3rd year undergrad at a mid-level US institution, presently mainly interested in Real and Complex Analysis.

Realname-User:
Name: John Smith. No further information. [And assume this is also an undergraduate without webpage or other significant online presence, so no real hope of finding this John Smith with Google.]

I think, leaving psycologiacal issues aside, the first, while in violation of the realnames-policy, provides more useful information when it comes to answering his questions.

Andrew Stacey (and also Mariano), thank you for taking the time to repeteadly explain me what you mean. I believe I finally understood it. Sorry it took so long for me to understand, but regarding this we apparently think/feel very very differently.

Todd Trimble comments on "Why not real names?" (13431)

2011-02-21T15:13:50-08:00

Truth be told, Andrew, I don't find your perspective that hard to understand; in part I was trying to draw you out a bit.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Why not real names?" (13430)

2011-02-21T15:03:58-08:00

an_mo_user: Please understand that I am not trying to construct a logical, reasoned argument. I am trying to explain what it is like for me - that's the only reliable data that I can bring to this discussion. In particular, I don't know why I am the way that I am! All I can say, is that a name helps. As I've said, I have no knowledge of Bill outside MO, yet my knowledge of him is far greater than for, say, Bugs Bunny. The fact that I can link the various small bits of information that I have about Bill but can't about Bugs is something that I attribute to the names.

I could have picked graduates, I might have had more trouble picking undergraduates simply because I don't know many just from MO. I don't think that it has anything to do with status, just that the higher status users are more noticeable. I have certainly noticed both Bill and Bugs, but one stuck and the other ... eats carrots.

I'm also not trying to say that my behaviour is ideal; just that if I'm typical then that information should be taken into account when someone chooses to be anonymous or pseudonymous.

Incidentally, this does suggest a strategy for someone wanting to be anonymous: choose something that could actually be a real name. Just don't choose Abel (and don't choose a gravatar of a famous mathematician).

Actually, talking of gravatars, the same goes for people that don't put pictures of themselves but choose something silly ... like the cheshire cat! Again, it's information that helps me build up a picture of who they are. I feel that I would know David Speyer at a conference, but I could be talking to Pete Clark for half an hour before realising who he was. (Actually, it would probably take about 2 minutes before he reminded me that I've offered to buy him quite a large number of pints by now.)

But I don't want to up the ante. I'll keep the discussion on names for now.

Mariano comments on "Why not real names?" (13428)

2011-02-21T14:39:18-08:00

Additionally to Bill's reason to disagree with an_mo_user: for me it is psychologically more pleasing to interact with definite persons whom I can individualize. You simply cannot do that with unknown(google).

Bill Johnson comments on "Why not real names?" (13425)

2011-02-21T13:53:10-08:00

>>
But, for example, let's consider an undergradute student that newly arrives to the site.
His/her name in all likelihood won't tell you anything whatsoever, and also might not help you to find any information (assuming the person has no/little online presence). How in such a case it still makes any difference for you whether it says Smith, Chen, Sanchez, Mueller,..., or something that is not a real name is really difficult to understand for me.
>>
I disagree. Knowing a poster is an undergraduate student gives information on how to formulate an answer. If a new poster gives a name and I click on the thread, I immediately click on the name to see if the poster gives information about himself or herself and sometimes also Google the name.

an_mo_user comments on "Why not real names?" (13424)

2011-02-21T13:27:14-08:00

Andrew Stacey, you were comparing your perception of two long time users, one of them a well-known mathematician and for the other one 'no-one knows'. Right, I can understand this can make a difference, and I even further agree that even if the person is not well-known but has some mathematical profile (for lack of a beeter word) that one can figure out, say, from his/her website or MathSciNet this can make a difference.
But, for example, let's consider an undergradute student that newly arrives to the site.
His/her name in all likelihood won't tell you anything whatsoever, and also might not help you to find any information (assuming the person has no/little online presence). How in such a case it still makes any difference for you whether it says Smith, Chen, Sanchez, Mueller,..., or something that is not a real name is really difficult to understand for me.

Yemon Choi, I really share your dislike for badly phrased one-line questions, but does it really make a difference whether it was asked by unknown(yahoo), Donald Duck, or John Smith (in particular, if there is no additional information beyond the name available)?

My main point is that I really don't understand the focus on the name, and apparently nobody is asking for more.
What if 2 mathematicians have the same name, is then more information 'compulsory' to pass the non-annonymous test; what if there are 10,...

Harry Gindi comments on "Why not real names?" (13415)

2011-02-21T10:06:30-08:00

@Qiaochu: One also doesn't put one's money in the care of Math Overflow (one is, I assume welcome to do so.. but MO does not guarantee that one's deposit will not be spent on a magnificent party and/or a spaceship).

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Why not real names?" (13414)

2011-02-21T09:46:19-08:00

@Mariano: why? Paypal uses https and I assume that Bugs Bunny's bank does as well. That alone makes them both more secure than most of the rest of the internet.

Mariano comments on "Why not real names?" (13413)

2011-02-21T09:41:40-08:00

Picking banks and paypal to bestow one's online trust on is somewhat funny :)

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Why not real names?" (13406)

2011-02-21T06:16:36-08:00

+1 Pete. I should mention that Bugs Bunny's reasons for anonymity are based on security and privacy and are, in my opinion, totally reasonable:

If MO required real names, I would not join it. Call it self-preservation instinct: web has become an extremely dangerous place to be. After a certain incident I have decided for myself to use creative identities everywhere on the web, except my bank and my paypal account...

Pete L. Clark comments on "Why not real names?" (13402)

2011-02-21T05:19:58-08:00

Since people are commenting on the dichotomy between "Bill Johnson" and "Bugs Bunny", let me add my opinion on the matter.

When Bill Johnson first appeared on MO, I didn't know him from Bugs Bunny. But because he uses his real name, I have with almost no effort learned a fair bit about him. People like Yemon Choi gave him a warm welcome and dropped hints on the meta site that he was a leading mathematician in the field of functional analysis. This has been confirmed by his answers on MO up to the best of my own knowledge: i.e., I know so little functional analysis as to be unable to tell the difference between a leading functional analyst and a decent functional analyst, but Professor Johnson is certainly decent enough for me. Moreover I began to notice and remember that certain theorems in functional analysis bear his name. Just now I went to MathSciNet and immediately found a William B. Johnson who has 118 papers in functional analysis and related areas, which have been cited 992 times. So it's pretty clear who and what he is. If I had a specific question about something that appeared in one of his papers (again, I am not at present up to that task, but I have been in the mathematics business long enough not to rule out the possibility that this could happen in the future) I could ask it here thinking that he would probably respond. Or perhaps I would feel bold enough to email him personally about the question, since he probably has at least some vague awareness of who I am as well. If some day our paths cross at some conference or other event, we will probably stop and talk to each other because of our MO connection. (Such has been the case, at least, with dozens of other mathematicians over the last 16 months.)

Now try out any of these things with Bugs Bunny...it doesn't work. Maybe he is someone that I already know, and maybe he isn't. (Maybe he's a she...) He certainly seems to be a knowledgeable and interesting person to the extent that I would benefit and enjoy out-of-MO interactions with him. So it seems a bit of a shame that I don't know his actual identity: without that he exists only as an MO character, whereas Bill Johnson and I exist also -- and let me go so far as to say primarily -- in REAL LIFE. I don't remember exactly what Mr. Bunny's justification for his anonymity is, but if I am being honest it strikes me as an eccentric and mildly antisocial choice. (It is, of course, his choice: I am not disputing that.) I wonder what he is gaining to give up all the pleasant human interaction that could come from identifying himself as a real person.

Angelo comments on "Why not real names?" (13396)

2011-02-21T00:43:52-08:00

To Storkle: maybe I will, my policy is not set in stone. But I have seen, and thought about, questions from anonymous users that I would have answered, had they not been anonymous.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Why not real names?" (13395)

2011-02-21T00:34:09-08:00

To Todd and Yemon, you both miss my point. Todd comes close when he says:

I'm not faulting you, Andrew, but I don't get it -- it sounds like all you're saying is that you just can't relate to pseudonyms.

I'm well aware that it may be a fault in me, but you are absolutely correct in that last phrase. I can't relate to pseudonyms. I knew nothing about Bill Johnson before MO, and still don't know anything about him outside. But I do see how others react to him (people like Yemon) and that's one piece of useful information. And, as I said, I just find that in my head there's a gap when I try to build up a profile of Bugs Bunny as compared to Bill Johnson. I'd say that fedja is probably on the borderline as far as my mind works. I have a reasonable picture of fedja, but anyone more pseudonymous than that is only 2D in my head.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (consider your off-shoots, if off-shoots there be ... sorry, very sorry), this may well be a fault in my brain and completely my fault. But if you want me to answer your questions, then that's something that you have to take in to account. I'm not trying to lay down the law (about the habits of baboons, or the number of quills a porcupine has got ... sorry, again, very sorry) - that sort of argument gets us nowhere as has been demonstrated many times on this thread. I'm trying to explain why I prefer people to use recognisable names. If no-one else agrees with me, then fine - ignore me! I'm also not trying to set myself up as a archetypical MO user. If you never ask a question that I could answer then my opinion makes no difference. But if there are others that agree with me, then it might be worth thinking about why we think the way that we do and asking, "Am I getting out of this site all that I could be?".

Ultimately, this site is about facilitating a transaction between two (or more) people. It's important to remember that the site is secondary to the transaction. So laying down laws about what behaviour should and shouldn't be acceptable is all very well, but it's easy to lose sight of the goal: making the transactions easier. Given that the specific transactions are not fair, it is also important for the party that gains the most (the questioner) to give the most (information) to make it as easy as possible for the answerer to participate. My point is that if I am the answerer, by making yourself pseudonymous or anonymous, then you need to do more work to make it reasonable for me to participate.

As I said, I'm not trying to speak for the majority, or even a minority. I'm only speaking for myself. I'm trying to provide an actual data point. This may well be a failing in my brain, but it's my brain and it's easier to change your behaviour than my way of thinking. Given that you (hypothetically) want something from me, it's also more reasonable to ask you to change your behaviour than my way of thinking.

deane.yang comments on "Why not real names?" (13394)

2011-02-20T20:50:32-08:00

I definitely agree that MO is a great place to learn about and from top notch mathematicians such as Nazarov and Ivanov.

Mark Meckes comments on "Why not real names?" (13393)

2011-02-20T18:48:32-08:00

@Yemon: I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were out of line, just that he isn't quite the best possible example of someone using his real-world name on MO.

Yemon Choi comments on "Why not real names?" (13392)

2011-02-20T18:08:53-08:00

@Mark: I hope I wasn't being "out of line" by mentioning that example - I recall some comments on an answer given by "fedja", which linked to articles by Fedor Nazarov, and certainly the areas of expertise seem to match up. (One is free to draw conclusions as I did, without saying categorically that they are one and the same person)

Mark Meckes comments on "Why not real names?" (13391)

2011-02-20T17:42:27-08:00

@Yemon: that last example is interestingly chosen, given that Fedja never uses his last name on MO.

Tom Church comments on "Why not real names?" (13390)

2011-02-20T17:24:04-08:00

From careful observation I suspect that Sergei Ivanov must be the joint pseudonym of a large group of brilliant mathematicians. As far as I can tell, they usually use their own names, reserving the Sergei Ivanov pseudonym for their most elegant and beautiful answers.

Todd Trimble comments on "Why not real names?" (13389)

2011-02-20T16:42:39-08:00

I think we are agreed then, Yemon. Another example for me would be Sergei Ivanov.

Yemon Choi comments on "Why not real names?" (13388)

2011-02-20T16:05:46-08:00

Todd: no worries, and I'm sure no one took your analogy in any offense (I certainly didn't). I am sure I don't recognize the names of many esteemed (algebraic/differential) geometers or number theorists here on MO, to name only two examples. And yes, I agree that your wider point stands.

However, I think that on occasion one can learn something by having a real-world name to attach to MO answers which indicate depth & insight: for a start, I had not come across anything by Fedja Nazarov before I started following MO, but the answers I've seen on MO mean that when I come across the name outside MO I will sit up and take note that little bit more readily.

Todd Trimble comments on "Why not real names?" (13387)

2011-02-20T15:46:59-08:00

Yemon: I must then plead ignorance. I am not in functional analysis, and did not recognize Bill's name as belonging to a giant in the field. I'm sure you're absolutely right, and I truly meant no offense. But I think my point could apply to cases of apparently real but not-yet-widely-recognized names, and I think it's an interesting issue.

Yemon Choi comments on "Why not real names?" (13386)

2011-02-20T15:30:09-08:00

Todd, I may be missing the point here, but for some of us the name "Bill Johnson" attached to posts about functional analysis is like seeing the name "Ross Street" attached to posts about category theory.

That said, I think there is something in your response to Andrew, in that it's not clear to me that from MO posts alone one builds up a better picture of Bill Johnson than of Bugs Bunny - there seems to be an unavoidable bias created by name recognition.

I am not entirely convinced by an_mo_user's analogy about stopping people in the street to ask the time. Indeed, one thing that hacks me off about some anonymous/pseudonymous users, though in fairness not all that many, is a seeming presumption behind their bald questions that asking people like me to think about their question, perhaps doing some mind-reading to bring it into better focus, is equivalent to them stopping me in the street & asking me for the time. It simply isn't. (Note that this behaviour is by no means limited to anonymous/pseudonymous users, so I don't want to derail this discussion too much.)

Storkle comments on "Why not real names?" (13385)

2011-02-20T15:27:29-08:00

@Angelo: I bet that some day, an anonymous poster asks a question you can't resist thinking about, and then answering. You are, after all, a mathematician. Itches will be scratched.

Todd Trimble comments on "Why not real names?" (13384)

2011-02-20T15:09:35-08:00

Andrew, I don't understand why you know more about Bill Johnson than about Bugs Bunny. If we restrict just to MO posts, the two personalities shine through about equally for me. For all I know without doing a google search, "Bill Johnson" could also be a pseudonym, like John Smith. (No offense, Bill: I'm sure that's your real name.) I'm not faulting you, Andrew, but I don't get it -- it sounds like all you're saying is that you just can't relate to pseudonyms.

(If I recall correctly, Bugs has already explained in this thread why he (I guess he) uses a pseudonym, and it seems like an okay reason.)

Andrew Stacey comments on "Why not real names?" (13383)

2011-02-20T14:32:36-08:00

I said a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away):

To be clear, I don't want to require real names, but I'd like to have a culture where real names was the expected norm and that those who chose to be anonymous or pseudonymous did so fully knowing that this was against the norm and had a darned good reason for it (better than any I've yet heard).

For the record, I consider Storkle's reason valid. For the following reasons:

Storkle has a reason.
Storkle has his/her own reason. I find it hard to believe that Storkle saw someone else say, "I'm anonymous because I'm a coward" and thought, "Hmm, that sounds alright, I'll go along with that."
Storkle admits, via that reason, that being anonymous is something slightly negative. That it is something that, in an ideal world, wouldn't be necessary. That begin anonymous means that Storkle isn't participating to the full in MO and is holding something back.

I do not support the motion that there is a correlation between anonymity and offensiveness. I don't disagree with it either. I have no evidence either way.

But I want to know who I'm helping. I want to connect questions with people, and answers as well, and gradually get a sense of who someone is. So if I meet them at a conference (which could very well happen) then I'll be able to say, "Hey, I recognise you from MO. You answered that question of mine, let me buy you a drink.".

Okay, so the Real World connection may not be necessary. But even so, I find it easier to build up a profile of a user with a real name. I know that Bugs Bunny is very involved in the site, but I cannot for the life of me take him/her seriously! I cannot "picture" him/her and link his/her contributions. I have no idea what areas Bugs specialises in, no idea what sort of question he/she answers. For counterpoint, I'm pretty sure that I have interacted as much with Bugs Bunny as with, say, Bill Johnson. Yet I know much, much more about Bill than Bugs. There are questions where I expect to see Bill answer, questions that I've asked where I think, "I wish I'd asked this when Bill was active on the site.". You may say that this is a failing in me. But if I'm typical, that's the way things are! It's all very well for one side to say, "I want to behave on MO in the way I choose, providing it doesn't offend anyone else" but then say, "You can't do the same: you have to treat all questions as equal no matter if the poster is anonymous or not.".

The previous poster said:

So, why does one need a name before answering a mathematical question. Yes, sometimes background is important, but one could give this locally or one could also give the background in the user profile without identifying oneself. So, if the problem is missing background/motativation I think one should discuss this, and not whether a user gives something that (presumably) is his/her real name.

You cannot give that sort of background information in a single post. You would quickly run out of characters. And the information that I need to know about you is not the same as someone else needs. A question does not stand or fall by itself. A question is asked by a person and knowing the person makes the question have an extra dimension that the question by itself would not have.

So stay anonymous, I have no problem with that. But do it knowing that you are not getting the most out of, nor putting the most in to MO. That''s the reason to make yourself known.

an_mo_user comments on "Why not real names?" (13382)

2011-02-20T12:33:10-08:00

Not that I considered my statement as particularly deep, but still I felt the need to mention the obvious.
Why? Well, because some people feel the need to criticize people that are annonymous.
Since I am, I am a target of this. (Not that I have sleepless nights over it, but then I don't really like it either.)

For me the question that would have some actual relevance to this debate is indeed close to the one Willie Wong mentioned, namely: is there a (strong) positive correlation between users behaving in an undesirable way on MO and users being annon/pseudonymous. (In particular, concerning somewhat longtime annon/pseudonymous users; not one time posters.)
If the answer is 'yes,' then I would understand the entire debate regarding this issue. If it is however 'no,' then I do not understand the problem.
My personal impression is that if anything there is a negative correlation.

The 'masks on the street' arguments and alike to me seem strange. After all, to continue the metaphor, if somebody asks me on the street for directions or the time, at least I would not ask for the person's name, or perhaps an ID-card, before answering. So, why does one need a name before answering a mathematical question.
Yes, sometimes background is important, but one could give this locally or one could also give the background in the user profile without identifying oneself. So, if the problem is missing background/motativation I think one should discuss this, and not whether a user gives something that (presumably) is his/her real name.

WillieWong comments on "Why not real names?" (13381)

2011-02-20T10:58:36-08:00

@Mariano: and the natural question to ask next is, does the law of excluded middle apply to the contemptibility of people, and whether that is dependent on onlineness?

Mariano comments on "Why not real names?" (13380)

2011-02-20T09:17:22-08:00

@an_mo_user: you are on the verge of concluding that "some people are contemptible and some people are not, independently of onlineness"....

an_mo_user comments on "Why not real names?" (13379)

2011-02-20T07:36:44-08:00

While I agree with Yemon Choi that some anonymous people on the internet are contemptible,
I would like to add that also some non-anonymous people on the internet are too,
and some anonymous people are not.

Returning to MO: in the rare cases I saw something resembling a 'fight' it seemed to me the involved parties were non-annonymous. Are there many instances of annonymous users that misbehave under the veil of annonymity?
I did not see much in this regard.
OK, sometimes somebody shows up and asks one poorly phrased question and dissapears, but I doubt that has that much to do with annonymity.

Actually, the longer I use MO the stronger my feelings pro anno/pseudonimity.
Indeed, I meanwhile (I saw this differently some time ago) would prefer if there was a policy in favour of annonymity or pseudonyms.

Storkle comments on "Why not real names?" (13378)

2011-02-20T04:38:17-08:00

@Jose: Ha! Godwin's Law will always win in the end. Actually, it doesn't really fit here, at least according to the wikipedia definition: "given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope— someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis."

I wasn't criticizing a point by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis. I was paraphrasing Henry Francis, and criticizing a point made by comparing it to a belief held by Betty.

José Figueroa comments on "Why not real names?" (13377)

2011-02-20T03:38:36-08:00

And here I was thinking that MO (meta) was immune to Godwin's law :)

Yemon Choi comments on "Why not real names?" (13376)

2011-02-19T22:08:57-08:00

Anonymous people on the internet are, at worst, annoying.

Storkle, you must read more civilized comment threads than I do... Some anonymous people on the internet are most definitely contemptible (though no examples on MO come to mind). That said, of course the best course of action is to ignore them where possible.

Storkle comments on "Why not real names?" (13375)

2011-02-19T16:42:40-08:00

@Greg: Contemptible is a strong word. I think Nazis are contemptible. Anonymous people on the internet are, at worst, annoying.

Angelo comments on "Why not real names?" (13371)

2011-02-18T13:28:35-08:00

If, legitimately, you don't want people googling your name to end up with a long list of MO posts, just use your first name, or anything else you like, as your MO pen name, and put a link to your web page, or your full name, in your profile.

I don't know if there are good reasons to want to remain anonymous, but I don't care. Recently I decided I will not answer questions from anonymous users, as I find it distasteful not to know who I am talking to. To me it feels like replying to an anonymous email message (ok, I realize that there are differences, but I really don't like it).

Greg Marks comments on "Why not real names?" (13370)

2011-02-18T12:48:11-08:00

Fear of looking stupid is, in my opinion, a contemptible reason for wanting anonymity. (Most of us live with that risk all the time.)

Regarding the concern about undue prominence in search engines of one's MO profile: perhaps there is some simple way to render names unreadable by Web crawlers? On my own Web page, for instance, I post my e-mail address as a GIF file to reduce spam. Is it technically feasible to implement some such thing for MO user names?

Regarding the observation that people don't generally walk around in public wearing masks: the Ku Klux Klan did (and does), an exception that would seem to buttress Alex Bartel's point.

WillieWong comments on "Why not real names?" (13012)

2011-02-02T05:16:32-08:00

I don't really care much if people use their real names or not.

What I really don't get from that thread is: what is the point of an unregistered user choosing the name Anonymous? It is hardly any different from leaving it at the default "unknown (google)" or "unknown (yahoo)" or what not.

Andres Caicedo comments on "Why not real names?" (13002)

2011-02-01T21:17:24-08:00

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/54045/what-are-an-advisers-responsibilities-closed seems a good example of why the use of real names is (more than) desirable.

James Bond comments on "Why not real names?" (12947)

2011-01-30T11:04:21-08:00

@Tim: I have information shedding light on the identity of a certain "Snuffleupagus". In exchange, all I ask for in return is a doppio cappuccino from Small World Coffee. That is, of course, if your security clearance allows you to talk to foreign agents.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Why not real names?" (12944)

2011-01-30T06:11:14-08:00

None taken. I already admitted that it was a frivolous question, and frankly I'm a little annoyed it got so much attention. I will probably not ask another question like it in a long time.

Yemon Choi comments on "Why not real names?" (12932)

2011-01-29T18:42:08-08:00

Can I also say that there is, in some online communities, a distinction drawn between pseudonymity and anonymity? That is, one might adopt a consistent pseudonym for blogging or commenting, which by virtue of the pseudonym is either meant to conceal the real identity or establish a kind of separate persona.

Personally, I have no great problem with people using pseudonyms, although I would agree with some of the opinions voiced above, in that I am more likely to respond favourably to someone who attaches a name and even some description or link. What annoys me more is the unknown (google) or unknown (yahoo) non-identity that is seen from time to time.

Talk of "the MO community" also seems to be used by people in different senses. Is this a situation where one applies a weighting? It is all very well to say that the content should determine the response, rather than the name, but the fact remains I am much more likely to sit up and take note of comments or rebuke by people who I know have "earned their stripes". If we are to go just by numbers of votes, then that question about puzzles at dinner which I can't stand, or -- no offence meant -- Qiaochu's recent question on what the point of functional equations might be, would represent the direction in which the site should go...

Scott Morrison comments on "Why not real names?" (12927)

2011-01-29T17:03:22-08:00

On the other hand, I do sort of have a personal anti-anonymity policy that very occasionally gets applied in my moderation. If you do something bad (not just post a closeable question, but are rude to someone, or post gibberish or spam) while completely anonymous (ie, not even leaving a valid email address in your profile) then there's no chance I'll try to sort out what's going on, give you the benefit of the doubt, or try to write a helpful email: I'll just delete or otherwise clean up as appropriate.

That said, completely agreeing with Ben, I can't imagine we'll ever become more hostile to anonymous users than that rather minimal level.

@Timothy et al, regarding your list of older questions. As others have said, consistency on ancient questions is too much to ask. Moreover, votes to close expire after a certain amount of time, so how are you to know that various people haven't voted to close the questions you mention? I probably wouldn't attempt to close any of the questions you mention at this point, as I think they are considered appropriate at this point. I'm not embarrassed to say that I wish we could all move further in the direction of thinking questions like this are inappropriate, however! I think it's okay to argue for a policy change on meta without attempting to implement it single handedly.

Ben Webster comments on "Why not real names?" (12926)

2011-01-29T16:47:34-08:00

Indeed. I this was made clear before, but let me emphasize it: there is zero chance of an nonimity policy being instituted on MO. There's no way it could possibly enforced, and I think I speak for the other moderators when I say I have no interest in being the identity police. So this is a not a discussion of whether Snuffleupagus will be allowed to continue their policy, but whether various people think it is wise/justified/cool.

Ryan Budney comments on "Why not real names?" (12925)

2011-01-29T16:19:03-08:00

Is there a need to respond to it? There are many advantages and disadvantages to anonymous participation, I think most acknowledge this. I tend to side with the perspective that anonymous participation should be allowed but discouraged but I'm not particularly strong willed on this issue.

Timothy Chow comments on "Why not real names?" (12924)

2011-01-29T16:05:51-08:00

Let me say something more about a point I made that nobody seems to have responded to. Victor Miller is a colleague of mine and he wanted to know why "Snuffleupagus" gave an excellent but anonymous, community wiki response to this question of his:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/44844/galois-groups-of-a-family-of-polynomials/45412#45412

When he enquired, Snuffleupagus explained that (s)he liked the concept of MO as a place to ask and answer questions, but intensely disliked the system of reputation. Therefore (s)he posts under a different pseudonym each time to avoid earning reputation and to ensure that his or her answers are voted up on their merit alone.

If anonymity were forbidden then I suspect we would lose Snuffleupagus's input. Do the opponents of anonymity not regard this as a reasonable argument for anonymity?

Ryan Budney comments on "Why not real names?" (12917)

2011-01-29T14:17:33-08:00

Timothy, I think you're looking at this too mechanistically. We're all human and look at questions differently in different situations. Old questions that are well off the front page don't get people's attention so there's no initiative to do anything with respect to them. This is a human endeavour and as such there are "safe" questions and "borderline" questions. Borderline questions tend to be more subject to whims than safe questions -- "safe" meaning technical mathematical problems. Borderline tends to be soft questions, big list questions, career advice questions, homeworkish problems, etc.

We're not all looking through the collective MO history all the time and thinking "does this meet MO's criteria?" I've voted to close some old and "established" MO threads, largely of the big-list and soft-question variety. But I've decided it's more efficient to put those tags on my ignore list as it was drawing me into too much conflict.

Timothy Chow comments on "Why not real names?" (12916)

2011-01-29T13:41:55-08:00

@Kevin: I don't follow your argument. If you think "Refereeing a paper" is inappropriate, then why don't you vote to close it? If you have respect for "momentum" then presumably that means that you regard those upvotes as reflecting the will of the MO community. The MO community may not have formed any sweeping consensus about all such questions, but it has clearly deemed some such questions to be appropriate.

I'd understand your point of view better if you and Andrew Stacey would vote to close "Refereeing a paper."

Kevin Buzzard comments on "Why not real names?" (12914)

2011-01-29T13:19:16-08:00

@Tim: I am pretty sure that a proportion of the community (me included) is not so fond of those sorts of questions (e.g. the ones you listed above) and would prefer that we stuck to "here is a precise well-defined technical research mathematics question". I think earlier on in the life of this site, the community wrestled with whether or not these sorts of questions were appropriate. I'm not sure it really reached any sort of coherent consensus; e.g. I think it is perfectly conceivable that a question of this nature, asked on two different days by two different people (I mean they ask precisely the same question), could have widely different results---depending on whether it gets momentum before it gets closed or not. On the other hand a random technical question at graduate student level or above will almost certainly never get closed: here the community's thoughts are much clearer. It may not get answered, or get any upvotes, but it won't get closed.

Timothy Chow comments on "Why not real names?" (12913)

2011-01-29T13:10:18-08:00

@Andrew Stacey: Let me make sure I understand your position correctly. If MO is purely for the discussion of technical questions, then in particular the following questions are inappropriate:

Refereeing a paper (117 votes)
Thinking and explaining (92 votes)
Which journals publish expository work? (90 votes)
When and how is it appropriate for an undergraduate to email a professor out of the blue? (69 votes)
Is a free alternative to MathSciNet possible? (63 votes)
What would you want to see at the Museum of Mathematics? (56 votes)

Is that correct? If so, then it seems that the MO community as a whole doesn't agree with you that this sort of content is inappropriate. Given its de facto appropriateness, I would think that the discussion of anonymity should be conducted in that context, not in the context of some hypothetical MO that you wish existed.

Storkle comments on "Why not real names?" (12872)

2011-01-28T05:29:14-08:00

I post anonymously (here and on the main site, obviously w/ different names) b/c I am a coward. Is that a good enough reason?

Harry Gindi comments on "Why not real names?" (12821)

2011-01-27T03:15:00-08:00

Yes, and we have anonymity on meta.

Tim van Beek comments on "Why not real names?" (12820)

2011-01-27T02:43:35-08:00

Alex Bartel said: "I don't see many people walking around with masks on the street (I should add "in this part of the world"), the reason simply being that it's so much again social norms."

There are companies though that have an anonymous communication channel for employees to voice concerns, because sometimes people won't risk their neck to tell about a deficiency or even a danger that their boss ignores. Because, if they do, and their boss gets the situation under control and does not get fired, you can imagine what most bosses do next... But, of course, these communication channels are for reporting dangers that are ignored by the authorities, and - I agree with Andrew here - MO is not about this. MO is not about finding out if some kind of criticism has fans and supporters.

Alex Bartel comments on "Why not real names?" (12816)

2011-01-26T17:21:33-08:00

+1 Andrew! I don't see many people walking around with masks on the street (I should add "in this part of the world"), the reason simply being that it's so much again social norms.

Bill Johnson comments on "Why not real names?" (12806)

2011-01-26T14:57:59-08:00

>>
If a question seems to require the author to be anonymous, then it isn't a good fit for MO.
>>

Amen, Andrew!

Pete L. Clark comments on "Why not real names?" (12799)

2011-01-26T13:34:22-08:00

For whatever it's worth: my comments were not written with "whistleblowing questions" in mind.

With regard to opinions: at least when you hear an opinion from a particular person you can record mentally "This person holds this opinion", which could possibly be of some future use. The weaker statement "Someone (apparently) holds this opinion" is close to useless.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Why not real names?" (12784)

2011-01-26T10:55:04-08:00

MO is not only for the discussion of technical questions but for the discussion of certain sociological aspects of the mathematical research community.

That's a contentious issue, I fear. I'm on the side that says that actually it is only for the discussion of technical questions and that the discussion of certain sociological aspects of the mathematical research community is an unfortunate thing that keeps cropping up and we keep having to stomp it back down again. Indeed, if requiring real names would make this aspect of MO more difficult then I would see that as another reason to require real names.

To be clear, I don't want to require real names, but I'd like to have a culture where real names was the expected norm and that those who chose to be anonymous or pseudonymous did so fully knowing that this was against the norm and had a darned good reason for it (better than any I've yet heard).

So I'll add to my list of "What makes a good MO question" the following: If a question seems to require the author to be anonymous, then it isn't a good fit for MO.

Ryan Budney comments on "Why not real names?" (12772)

2011-01-26T08:36:29-08:00

The problem with whistleblowing is that what might appear to be whistleblowing to one person may appear to be slander to another. I doubt it's productive to make MO a part of a whistleblowing strategy -- it could both cause problems for MO and could escalate a minor problem into a large one for the parties involved. I think these situations are largely outside the mandate of MO.

Timothy Chow comments on "Why not real names?" (12767)

2011-01-26T07:57:32-08:00

@Pete: I believe that the reasons I stated apply equally to questions and answers. If I'm replying to a question about a potential whistleblowing situation by describing a similar situation that I was once in, I might quite reasonably choose to remain anonymous. Similarly I might want to make sure that my answer doesn't get voted up above someone else's possibly superior answer just because I'm famous and have a fan club that will vote up anything I say.

The anonymous opinions that you have no sympathy towards sound to me like posts you should have no sympathy towards whether or not they are anonymous. It's only if you think that anonymity significantly increases the frequency of such posts that they're relevant to a discussion of anonymity.

Pete L. Clark comments on "Why not real names?" (12753)

2011-01-25T15:19:59-08:00

@Timothy: if I may be allowed a brief response under the proviso that I have not carefully read all the previous posts in this thread (so it is possible that I am repeating what someone else has said):

I have a lot of sympathy towards anonymous questions on MO. A lot of people want to ask questions but are for whatever reason too embarrassed to do so. This includes professional mathematicians and even eminent ones. It is so much better to ask the question anonymously than not at all.

I have less sympathy towards anonymous answers. Unlike in the previous case, I just don't understand the motivation for it. As I reader, I find it desirable to know who the answerer is. If I want to have further dialogue with an answerer, then any information I may know about them could be of use to me. It's not just a matter of respect (or sycophancy): I am going to respond differently, say, to Kevin Buzzard than to Brian Conrad than to David Speyer, although I hold all three in the highest esteem.

I have basically no sympathy towards anonymous opinions. If someone wants to argue with someone else, or relate statements about their own experience, and so forth, then it is of no interest to me from an anonymous source. Most of all, if you're going to make negative comments about someone anonymously -- well, I feel that's a clear abuse of the site.

Timothy Chow comments on "Why not real names?" (12749)

2011-01-25T08:32:01-08:00

I'm surprised that the most obvious reason for anonymity hasn't been mentioned yet. MO is not only for the discussion of technical questions but for the discussion of certain sociological aspects of the mathematical research community. Say I want to ask for career advice but don't want my employer to know that I'm looking for another job. Say I am considering blowing the whistle on some improper activity but want some advice before I take the plunge. Say I want to protect someone else's anonymity and that revealing my own identity will give readers enough clues to make a shrewd guess about the identity of that someone else. Although such situations may be rare and MO isn't the appropriate forum for all of them, some such situations have already come up and the MO community has deemed them appropriate content. Anonymity is crucial in such cases. (One other example that I don't think has been tested yet: Say a referee wants to ask a question that for some reason can't be handled through the author or editor. I'm not sure I can think of an example that would be appropriate for MO, but I can imagine that examples might exist. Without anonymity, such a question is ruled out a priori.)

Another reason for anonymity is that someone may wish to get an honest reaction to their question without "contamination" from their real-world reputation. There have been a couple of times on MO when a famous mathematician has "gotten away" with asking a question that would have been closed instantly otherwise. If the famous mathematician dislikes this effect then anonymity seems to be the only way to counteract it. I seem to recall that Donald Knuth would sometimes submit papers pseudonymously in order to get objective referee reports.

an_mo_user comments on "Why not real names?" (12712)

2011-01-24T02:26:22-08:00

Thank you for the additional answers.
I consider the current situtation as I see it pretty optimal (by mistake I thought the entire discussion was recent and it might be about to change),
that is most regular users use their real name, yet it is still possible to contribute anonymously (which I consider as convenient).
In view of this, in case I should become a regular user too, I will then also use my real name.
In the meantime, I appreciate that I can participate without doing so.

FInally, let me seize this opportunity to thank the administrators and regular users for making the site a great resource.

Bill Johnson comments on "Why not real names?" (12697)

2011-01-22T00:37:08-08:00

>>
After reading this discussion, I decided to stop posting anonymously and start using my real name.
>>

Milinovich, this makes me glad that I started the thread.

Alex Bartel comments on "Why not real names?" (12696)

2011-01-21T17:00:47-08:00

A generalisation of Qiaochu's civility reason is that revealing your identity makes for greater personal investment into your answers and questions. You will be generally more careful to not ask Wikipedia-questions and to not give wrong or not well thought-out answers.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Why not real names?" (12694)

2011-01-21T14:21:29-08:00

I like to know who I'm talking to.

Should't a question, in particular a mathematical one, be judged rather on its own merits (as opposed to the ones of the person asking)?

I agree with the statement, but disagree with the conclusion: that the information as to who asked the question is irrelevant. It is extremely relevant. Not just for the reasons given above, namely that one day I might run in to them at a conference (maths is certainly a small world!) or that some outside-MO knowledge helps me frame my answer, but also because one of the reasons that I'm here is to interact with other mathematicians. I want to do that through the mathematics, but I definitely want to get to know other mathematicians through this website. So I want to be able to link questions together and answers as well, get to know who the experts in a particular field are, get to know what people are thinking about or interested in. I can give a variety of practical reasons for this, but ultimately it's because I want to know that I'm part of a bigger game than just me sitting in my office drawing bizarre diagrams on pieces of paper. It's probably a bit unusual of me, but I find names easier to remember than numbers, so I'll notice "Willie Wong" when I see it here, and on other websites, and if I see a paper by him on the arXiv it increases the chance that I'll download it (possibly not the chance that I'll actually read it ...). But after the 532nd "unknown (google)" I find my mind going a little blank.

The Celts weren't completely wrong when they thought that names had power, but it's not power over someone, it's power with them.

(It's late, and I'm getting philosophical, so I'll shut up before I say anything daft. Ooops, too late.)

an_mo_user comments on "Why not real names?" (12692)

2011-01-21T08:58:55-08:00

If I counted correctly, In the 13th comment (the third of Bill Johnson):
"Before I answer a question, I like to know who is asking it."
Though, as said in my original comment, I might overinterpret this, and the remainder of Bill Johnsons comment suggests this to some extent.

Also, when trying to locate a time-mark to give a pointer to the comment I meant, I only now noticed that this discussion is in fact very old, and not current. I saw it at the very top, as there was one but only one, recent addition, and did not look carefully.

Thank you for your answer. And, sorry, for inadvertently resurecting an old discussion.

WillieWong comments on "Why not real names?" (12691)

2011-01-21T08:50:54-08:00

A remark in view of the argument that some people don't want their MO profiles to supplant their department homepages on Google: Thanks to using my real name on MathOverflow, I've finally surpassed Willie "Woo Woo" Wong, 1940's Chinese-American basketball star from the bay area, on search engines. I'm now just one New York photographer and one Chinese-Malay-Canadian artist shy of complete Google dominance. :)

Yeah, for people with common names, any publicity is good publicity. :)

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Why not real names?" (12690)

2011-01-21T08:35:14-08:00

@an_mo_user: first of all, after having scanned the thread again, I cannot find anyone who said this. Personally, I think the biggest reason to encourage the use of real names is that it encourages civility on everyone's part.

But as long as we're talking about knowing who asked, for me the issue is social. Although we are all mathematicians, we are all probably also humans, and humans like to know who they're helping when they help someone. It would be nice, for example, to know who you're dealing with on MO in case you ever meet them at a conference later in life; that would be an opportunity to establish a connection. (I think I am going to meet a lot of people this way.)

an_mo_user comments on "Why not real names?" (12689)

2011-01-21T08:16:54-08:00

I am a somewhat frequent reader and occassional (anonymous) contributer to MO. (Yet, personally, I have no strong feelings about this.)
Reading this thread, in particular, a (main?) reason given against ano/pseudonymity 'like to know who asked', I wonder why this is so important.

While I can see (and agree) that sometimes it can be useful to see the background of the person asking to decide what type of answer would be most helpful [though it seems to me that often this is merely due to the fact that the question is not carefully formulated], I find the general wish to know who specifically asked surprising.
(Possibly I am overinterpreting this comment.)

Should't a question, in particular a mathematical one, be judged rather on its own merits (as opposed to the ones of the person asking)?

Milinovich comments on "Why not real names?" (12688)

2011-01-20T19:58:45-08:00

After reading this discussion, I decided to stop posting anonymously and start using my real name.

Bugs Bunny comments on "Why not real names?" (6101)

2010-06-15T04:11:56-07:00

If MO required real names, I would not join it. Call it self-preservation instinct: web has become an extremely dangerous place to be. After a certain incident I have decided for myself to use creative identities everywhere on the web, except my bank and my paypal account...

Ben Webster comments on "Why not real names?" (4825)

2010-04-19T07:53:07-07:00

What about all the schools that have switched to using Google Apps?

Noah Snyder comments on "Why not real names?" (4759)

2010-04-15T12:27:44-07:00

David's point (2) as far as it applies to non-shared cloud records seems a little crazy to me. Surely Google's security is far far better than my personal computer's security, or the security of my wireless network, or whatever OSU's tech people have put in place to secure the official grades.

I think the subpoint that one should be careful about allowing *students* access to official work and grades via say google spreadsheets, but the reason there is that *their parents are reasonably likely to have the opportunity to snoop around their kids google accounts*. I.e. the same reason you shouldn't email grades.

Harry Gindi comments on "Why not real names?" (4758)

2010-04-15T09:25:00-07:00

I've heard tell that such things can be easily purchased in Ann Arbor...

Are you serious? How could all of this crime be going on right under my nose without me ever suspecting it? =S

Ivana Tinkle comments on "Why not real names?" (4757)

2010-04-15T09:08:21-07:00

@Harry: You seem a bit tense. I recommend partaking in sort of calming illegal substance before logging onto meta -- it might improve your mood. I've heard tell that such things can be easily purchased in Ann Arbor...

Harry Gindi comments on "Why not real names?" (4756)

2010-04-15T07:24:00-07:00

@Regenbogen: I'm not convinced. I doubt that anyone will be able to tell who you are just by a description of your plight. It's not hard to deduce that you're another user on this site, but that is not your real name either. If you have a real argument and real circumstances, then you have to give reasons. If not, you're just repeating the same non-argument over and over again.

@David: I'm not asking him to reveal his true identity. I'm asking him to present an argument instead of whining about how he needs to protect his identity at all costs. If he refuses, then he has nothing else to add here. He's given his opinion, and he doesn't need to keep repeating it. If he want to argue a position in a discussion between adults, he should be expected to present his case like an adult. That means that an argument is more than just orders "you should do this and you should do that to protect those who enjoy anonymity". I'm not saying that there is no argument to be made for anonymity, just that he's not making it.

David Speyer comments on "Why not real names?" (4755)

2010-04-15T07:23:30-07:00

How about we discuss issues related to anonymity, and not speculate about the identities and motives of the people in the conversation?