Comments on: Food and Loathing http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/ Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:01:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Periodismo Ciudadano http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-141892 Periodismo Ciudadano Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:16:17 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-141892 [...] artículo ha propiciado la reacción de Dan Gilmor (Center for Citizen Media) quien se despacha a gusto en una entrada que titula “Comida y [...] [...] artículo ha propiciado la reacción de Dan Gilmor (Center for Citizen Media) quien se despacha a gusto en una entrada que titula “Comida y [...]

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-138222 Delia Wed, 28 Mar 2007 02:22:10 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-138222 I don't see any issue with people choosing to remain anonymous in such circumstances -- it seems to me that they just value their privacy (hard to hold it against them). IF it is done *to deceive*... of course that's wrong but the intent to deceive is what makes it wrong, not their desire to preserve their privacy. Well... as far as *I* see it... D. I don’t see any issue with people choosing to remain anonymous in such circumstances — it seems to me that they just value their privacy (hard to hold it against them). IF it is done *to deceive*… of course that’s wrong but the intent to deceive is what makes it wrong, not their desire to preserve their privacy. Well… as far as *I* see it… D.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-137146 Dan Gillmor Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:57:04 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-137146 You don't know for sure. I think of it as an invitation to do the right thing, not a guarantee that people won't cheat. I'd rather encourage good behavior than ignore the issue. You don’t know for sure. I think of it as an invitation to do the right thing, not a guarantee that people won’t cheat. I’d rather encourage good behavior than ignore the issue.

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-136192 Delia Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:32:19 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-136192 Well... you seem to have an odd hang-up on the need to give one's actual name in *such circumstances* (now if you met someone in person and they gave you some made up name, yeah... you'd have no good reason to trust them) but on some board online? there is really no need or use for their actual names; besides, how would you know it was their real name anyways? Especially if it's a common name... D. Well… you seem to have an odd hang-up on the need to give one’s actual name in *such circumstances* (now if you met someone in person and they gave you some made up name, yeah… you’d have no good reason to trust them) but on some board online? there is really no need or use for their actual names; besides, how would you know it was their real name anyways? Especially if it’s a common name… D.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-136017 Dan Gillmor Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:32:05 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-136017 I care, because someone who doesn't use a real name gives me less than no reason to trust what's being said. I care, because someone who doesn’t use a real name gives me less than no reason to trust what’s being said.

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-135921 Delia Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:00:27 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-135921 Dan, as I already said I find your take on anonymous posts and the inferences you draw from peoples *choice* to remain anonymous extreme -- *What* people are saying (whether they chose to remain anonymous or not) and what *evidence* they give for what they are saying is what matters to me... Much more than *who* said so. Unless they are "experts in the field" (and even then they would have to have adequate evidence for what they are saying), who cares if their name is Joe Dow or Mary Smith? Delia Dan, as I already said I find your take on anonymous posts and the inferences you draw from peoples *choice* to remain anonymous extreme — *What* people are saying (whether they chose to remain anonymous or not) and what *evidence* they give for what they are saying is what matters to me… Much more than *who* said so. Unless they are “experts in the field” (and even then they would have to have adequate evidence for what they are saying), who cares if their name is Joe Dow or Mary Smith?

Delia

]]> By: Nelson Minar http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-135820 Nelson Minar Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:48:54 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-135820 Yep, that article was terrible. Even worse, it was published as the top item on the front page of the Sunday newspaper. Apparantly the SF Chron editors think "people have opinions about restaurants" is breaking news. The front page of the local news section now features a banner ad on the bottom of the page. Sad times for the Examiner/Chronicle. Yep, that article was terrible. Even worse, it was published as the top item on the front page of the Sunday newspaper. Apparantly the SF Chron editors think “people have opinions about restaurants” is breaking news. The front page of the local news section now features a banner ad on the bottom of the page. Sad times for the Examiner/Chronicle.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-135212 Seth Finkelstein Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:33:30 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/03/25/food-and-loathing/#comment-135212 Dan, what evidence do you have that you are right? That is, the difference between "ought" and "is". There is a vast gap between the ideas: 1) Anonymous comments should have little or no credence. 2) Anonymous comments do have little or no credence. Perhaps anonymous comments have a significant effect even though they should not. So maybe the reporter is correct in the sense that the statement describes how the world is, not how it should be. And you should know the likely response to asking people to use their real names: "Why does it matter? Are you trying to make trouble for me? ANONYMITY IS MY RIGHT!!! The Federalist Papers were published anonymously, long live the revolution. You fascist, your political understanding is as bad your food. etc. etc." [Not that this is meaningful. It's just what would probably happen.] Dan, what evidence do you have that you are right? That is, the difference between “ought” and “is”. There is a vast gap between the ideas:

1) Anonymous comments should have little or no credence.

2) Anonymous comments do have little or no credence.

Perhaps anonymous comments have a significant effect even though they should not. So maybe the reporter is correct in the sense that the statement describes how the world is, not how it should be.

And you should know the likely response to asking people to use their real names: “Why does it matter? Are you trying to make trouble for me? ANONYMITY IS MY RIGHT!!! The Federalist Papers were published anonymously, long live the revolution. You fascist, your political understanding is as bad your food. etc. etc.”

[Not that this is meaningful. It's just what would probably happen.]

]]>