From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:15:48 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1h5e5sINNinm@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>In article <8186@news.duke.edu> jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead) writes:
>
>>But in any case what you say isn't true.  
>
>Bullshit.  fig@eff confirmed, at least in all salient details, my
>original description of the situation.

What I am saying was not true was not your entire description, which
indeed is pretty accurate, but what I had quoted above my statement:

>>>Whereas WELL anonymity is unavailable to J. Random Subscriber
>>>at any price.

As I mention below, I don't think this is the case, though it certainly
is discouraged.

>> Anonymity is available 
>
>You mean "pseudonymity is available"  -- don't complain about
>my misnomer, then use it yourself!!

I hadn't thought of the word "pseudonymity".  I had considered
substituting a different phrase for "anonymity" in my original draft,
but it made everything hard to read.  Instead I had a line that said
"(Below, I will use "anonymous" as we have been using it, keeping in
mind its inaccuracies.)" For conciseness, I edited it out of the copy I
submitted to Usenet, thinking that after my clarification that the
meaning would be understood and not nitpicked.

>>If you as a
>>non-celebrity could come up with a good argument as to why you wanted to
>>be anonymous, you could probably get an account that way.  It's just
>>that celebrities are the main group that have wanted to protect their
>>identities and have the most valid reasons.
>
>I think it is pompous for you to try to assert what constitutes 
>a "valid reason". 

I wasn't asserting that those are valid reasons (though I tend to think
that they are), here I was only inferring that from the behavior of the
administrators that I have witnessed, those are reasons that they
find valid.

One other thing that you may not be aware of: the Well allows you to
use pseudonyms in your postings that are coupled with your userid.
So you can have a userid that is a handle, and use a pseud all the
time and not have your name revealed.  (If someone fingers you,
however, your real name will show up, though, unlike for the 
celebrities).

>Example: suppose a user asked for a pseudonymous account because they
>are simply too shy to socialize on the computer under
>their real name?
>
>My guess -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the Well admins would
>say "sorry" to such a request.

My guess would be that they would say, "we have a policy against it".
And if you insisted that you be able to do it, and had a decent
argument against it, and it was a factor in your decision as to
whether you'd join, perhaps you'd get it your way.

What it boils down to is that the Well just doesn't want a system with
users that lack accountability.  Anonymous or fully pseudonymous systems
tend to do that.

Celebrities have been seen to be a special case, because (1) by virtue
of their celebrity, they are subject to harassment, which would preclude
their enjoyment of the system, and (2) they already have accountability
because they are well-known.  (As fig says, their names would be
displayed if they were doing something improper.)

Non-celebrities do not have as much riding on their names (since most
are not known non-locally), so would be more likely to abuse the
privilege of having a pseudonymous account. 

But of course we're both just speculating on how strictly the policy is
enforced; perhaps fig or a current administrator can enlighten us... 

-- 
 ________________________________________________________________________
|   John      jfw@neuro.duke.edu          Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead   jfw@well.sf.ca.us           Department of Neurobiology     |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk