Dropping the Real Name Policy, Allowing Anonymous Comments, Site Slimming and Restarting the LCDEV Team
At the upcoming London Commons meeting I'd like to propose a few changes that I'll outline here in order of most-to-least controversial.
Dropping the Real Name Policy
Since the beginning the London Commons has required users to use their real names for their login on the site. At the time this policy was somewhat unique and many have listed it as a compelling reason to use the site. The ideas behind this policy were that it would encourage a greater sense of community, and that people would be accountable for their postings.
I was the one who originally put forward the real name policy. And I know that a lot of people are pretty attached to it. But after almost 4 years I now think that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Almost all of the information posted to the site is indexed by search engines. The only stuff that is private are private messages (can only be viewed by sender and recipient), user profiles (can only be viewed by users with accounts, must be signed in) and content in groups (only visible to group members and moderators).
The problem here is that with the real name policy, everything you post here can be traced back to your real-life identity. I fear that this discourages people from posting. Whether they're afraid of black government helicopters or simply risks to future employment, the risks are real.
Another perspective on this can be taken by looking at the "Who's New" block in the sidebar. As Rachel and now Mike could surely tell you, several people over the years have signed up without using real names. I wonder how many of them simply gave up on the site when we insisted that they change their usernames. Being able to use a pseudonym is a fairly widespread expection on the internet.
Of course people could still use their real names if they want to. We could also make real names a profile field that would only be visible to other users (and not search engines or those not signed in) though I think this should be optional as well.
I think that dropping the real name policy would lead a surge in new users and participation on the site. In my view the policy has been more of an obstacle than anything. Let's face it, real names haven't exactly prevented flame wars, have they? And with the rise and domination of Facebook there is already a place for real-name-based-networking.
Allowing Anonymous Comments
This proposal is motivated by some of the same reasons as above.
I think we should remove as many obstacles to participation in the community as possible.
Allowing anonymous comments might also result in lots of new users. The scenario I see is this: a user stumbles across the LC by doing a search, they find something interesting and want to leave feedback so they post an anonymous comment. Their comment gets responded to, and after engaging in some discussions the formerly anonymous user creates an account to be able to participate more actively in the community.
We can make it so anonymous commenters have to complete a CAPTCHA before posting their comment, just like the one for new accounts.
This proposal only applies to comments. Accounts would still be needed to post top-level content like blogs, events or images.
Removing Bloat, Making a Team for Redesign
The last upgrade to the site got a little carried away. It's time to carve away some of the bloat and streamline the site so it's easier to use, less overwhelming and better looking.
I'd like to restart the LCDEV team. The team would be responsible for fixing, improving, streamlining and beautifying the site.
In particular, I propose stripping the site down to a few core functions:
- events calendar
- groups
- blogs
- images (and galleries)
- books (for site how-to's and policies)
A lot of the other stuff would be removed, like spacebucks, mugshots, recipes and other things that are unused or can be accomplished without a special feature.
Involvement in the team would not require computer programming experience, just a willingness to learn and help out. This could be a great learning experience if web design/development is something you've been interested in. Or if you're already skilled that's even better!
- Jeremy M's blog
- Login or register to post comments
User login
Upcoming events
Search
Recent Images
Recent Blogs
Who's online
Recent comments
- The Black Bloc is never violent. EVER. Understand?
1 week 3 days ago - Some other places where this discussion is playing out
1 week 6 days ago - All of the revisions
2 weeks 2 days ago - Revisions
2 weeks 4 days ago - Not embedded
2 weeks 6 days ago - Quick excerpt from a Star editorial
3 weeks 5 days ago - how anarchist is the black bloc on a scale of 1 to 10?
3 weeks 5 days ago - Correct
3 weeks 6 days ago - Black Bloc, whoever they may be, screwed us indeed
3 weeks 6 days ago - elaborate?
3 weeks 6 days ago
front page
as I posted in another thread (my triumphant return post), I mentioned focus on the main uses of the site.
specifically the events. The most used content-type is the event. The front page, and the site in general is lacking in showcasing this. Instead its left as a small list on the side of the page.
I would like to see the blog scroll from the front page be removed, to be replaced with events.
then blogs could be listed beside or below the upcoming events.
I'm just not down
Dropping real names
I'm still finding my self very much opposed to the idea of dropping the Real Names requirement. First of all, I think it's a bit overly simplistic to attribute the decline in participation to one factor such as the requirement to post under one's real name, as opposed to a pseudonym or anonymously. I don't think there's some magic technical switch or policy change that will rejuvenate the site. I really think that the main thing that's going to bring new users in is a vibrant site and its community. Things like fresh content, discussions, etc... Another obstical could be the London Commons' lack of an identity.
I think its important to remember that the site does not belong to future user or past users, it belongs to the current users. As we try to bring in new users, I think its important that we are mindful not to compromise our values too much. We should be weary of adapting our policies to the wishes (or what we think the wishes may be) of people who *may* want to join or those who have left. Rather, our policies should be adapted as our community values evolve. If new people choose to sign up, great... if not, we're no worse off then we were.
The best online communities I've been to and still use all require require real names. (especially ones that parallel some sort of real world community, be it a community of interest or a geographical community). Real names reinforce a sense of community in a couple of ways. First it reminds you that you're dealing with other people, not just a screen and keyboard. Second, it introduces a of measure of accountability. I've seen it described as "Vulnerability to Community". By offering our real names we voluntarily make ourselves vulnerable to the community, show that we trust in it and that we are willing to have a stake in it. We acknowledge that if we break the community expectations of the site through poor online behaviour, our words and posts will reflect on us. I think *most* people realise that what they post under their own name can affect their reputation both online and offline. And for *most* people, this is enough to keep them from acting like a fuckwad. To be honest, if someone is worried that their behavior online will limit their future job prospects, I'd prefer they don't sign-up for an account here. No, the real-names policy hasn't prevented all flame wars, but I shutter to think how busy I'll be if people can hide behind anonymity. I can imagine how much worse the flame-wars we have had would have been. Thing have been pretty quiet here lately. I think the combination of realnames and karma ratings have contributed to that. With the exception of one example that I can think of, It has been pretty effective at preventing trolling though.
As I see it, there are plenty of anonymous sites on the web already, I don't think we don't need to be one. Look how well it works for the IMC network. Most of their open publishing news wire is dominated by Cranks. between the 9/11conspiericies, biblical rants and the truthyness in reporting, you can barley find anything useful in all that noise. Again I think it comes back to the connection between what one posts online and their reputation. What incentive is there for someone posting to IMC to fact-check their reports or refrain from bending the truth if there's no way to hold them accountable. Because of this I find anonymous post have almost zero credibility. Post under a pseudonym don't have much more. There many examples in internet culture where pseudonym have been used widely by a single individual across many different forums dedicated to some interest or another for many years and creates an identity for that pseudonym, but I don't think that most of the current users of this are so invested in internet culture that they would recognise a pseudonym as an identity from other sites. I doubt that many of us have a pseudonym identity on other sites that's relevant here.
As for worries that post under one's real name could result in attention from Police or oppressions from the state: I'd say that the onus is on people to practice good security culture, which means not posting your exploits on line at all, not even under a pseudonym or anonymously. Simply put, it's not difficult to connect a comment on a web-forum to an IP address.
Yes several people have signed up with out using their real names, but most people have used their real names. it's the honour system. we don't need a 100% success rate. Doing away with real names because some people sneak by is like saying we should allow theft because some people get away with staling.
At a minimum I'd have to insist on realnames displayed alongside usernames on all post (perhaps w/ the usernames and realnames visible only to logged-in users, only usernames visible to visitors).
Allowing anonymous comments
See above...
One concern I have this idea is people simply logging out to flame.
If we do allow anonymous comments, I think they should require approval from a moderator before becoming visible. And I'd want a lot of discretion on what will and won't be approved. but i still don't think that this is a good idea.
I'm also concerned about the workload this could cause. As it is now Captcha is not doing a great job of preventing spam accounts. In allowing anonymous comments, we'd be removing one more step between a spammer discovering our site and posting spam. I'm inclined to believe that most of our spam recently has been from viral marketers actually taking time to sign up for an account, spamming, moving on to the next site. I really don't want to see this get easier.
Dev team
I think the last thing we need right now is another upgrade. The lack of interest the community showed towards voicing input in the last two upgrades shows me that its not a priority. The last two upgrades caused a lot of friction and many tasks still have yet to be followed through.
As I mentioned already, I think that the only thing that's going to bring new users in is a vibrant site/community with fresh content, discussions, etc... I don't think the lack of participation will be resolved by a technical or design solution.
I still think streamlining a good idea, but I'd like to keep recipes and make them easier to find. Forums still needed for Moderation tasks.
Alternatives?
Again, I believe the key to revitalising the site is user driven: We need to regularly see new content being produced. Blogs, reviews, recipes, images, galleries, audio tracks, etc... I'd like to propose soliciting commitments from people to post new content regularly. perhaps us moderators should each commit to posting some sort of content weekly or even monthly... Hopefully this would result in more discussions and more interest, drawing in more potential contributors.
I also think we should start thinking about what we want the London Commons site to be. Most sucessful online communities are founded with a purpose or scope. I've never been quite clear on what it is in our case.
-30-
Mike.
"Born helpless, nude and unable to provide for himself, Michael C. McGregor overcame these handicaps to drop the Sword of Stalengrad. "
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Yes... keep the real name thang, please.
word!
what mcG! said.
PEACEonTHEstreets...
-mp
Here's my post summed up graphically
-30-
Mike.
"Born helpless, nude and unable to provide for himself, Michael C. McGregor overcame these handicaps to mind the bullocks."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
dear mike.
thank you for inspiring me laughing out loud in some coffee shop.
i have totally run into shitcocks on the interweb. fabulous commentary.
heart....
privacy, accountability, and spam
Four or five years ago as I was creating the site, I did not foresee just how public people's live would become with the advance of online social networking. These days it's not just the state and corporations that know too much about you, everybody does! Maybe this sounds paranoid, but I just don't want to live my life completed documented out in the open for everyone to see. Why do people I don't know need to know what I'm up to all the time? Surely there are others who share this sentiment of not wanting such a public life.
I used to think that anonymity meant less accountability. Now I don't see it so black and white. For one, there's no reason to think that users with fake names wouldn't contribute positively to the community. There are many successful online communities where pseudonymed users develop credibility over time through their contributions. On sites like Ubuntu Forums and Wikipedia users who have contributed content want to continue to be recognized for their contributions and as positive community members. That attachment to their username is a strong motivation to act with accountability.
In some ways increased privacy could lead to greater accountability. Pseudonyms and anonymity can provide avenues for those wishing to make valid criticisms without getting caught up in drama and bickering. A fake name is like a mask, because it forces us to focus on what is being said instead of the speaker. Posting under a pseudonym means one can counter group think without being judged personally for it and having it effect one's social life. Think about how hard it can be to criticize the London Commons--or any other group in the grassroots community--and not feel like an outcast after reading the responses.
For example, how can you call a bully on their behaviour without conflict and drama forcing their way into your life. With a real name policy, in a small place like London you can't.
When it comes to whether content posted under pseudonyms is credible or worth reading, why not let the readers make that call? People can decide for themselves just fine whether something is worth reading or not. Some people may choose to ignore posts from pseudonyms or anonymous comments all together. Anonymous content shouldn't just be banned outright, it should be up to everybody whether they want to access it or not.
Concerns about spam are justified. I see spam as more of a techinical problem than a labour one. Computers can be trained to take care of spam automatically, our current solution just isn't very robust. That's one reason we need a team like LCDEV, to find and improve solutions to problems like spam. At least with anonymous comments the spammers need to complete a CAPTCHA for every piece of spam. As it stands the cost of solving one CAPTCHA means they can spam the site until they get stopped.
That said, clearly one or two simple answers cannot be found for addressing all of the challenges faced by the London Commons. I think my proposals are part of the answer, but we need to get much more organized in general and I'm glad you and others bringing ideas forward too.
G0nz0Tr0N217
I'm not so sure that most people already have a username that they have a strong attachment to. We have to remember that unless someone has a strong affinity to internet culture, a username is probably just a disposable identity they use until they lose interest in a particular site. Many folks probably have different usernames for many of the sites they visit, each its own disposable identity. I think it's also important to remember that this site is meant to be an online extension of a real life community, one where I don't introduce myself as "G0nz0Tr0n217" (google it).
Let's be realistic... If history has shown us anything on this site, it's that people have no reservations about criticising the site or moderators under their real names. In fact, some have been quite enthusiastic about it, not only on this site, but across others as well. Besides, we use the honour system. Who would know any different if I posted this under the name "Jeff Saunders" or "Parry Horne"?
What's the point of calling a bully on their behaviour if they have no stake in changing it? If someone is bullying anonymously their behaviour doesn't affect their reputation because they're clocked in anonymity or a pseudonym.
Again, as to concerns about unwanted attention from authorities over what is posted under one's own name or concerns about oppression from the state: I'll re-emphasise that anonymous posting is not a reliable substitute for practising good security culture or a quality tinfoil hat.
I trust most people on this site to post constructively, indeed most people in general, under a pseudonym or anonymously. However pseudonym and anonymity give can give a disruptive person a disproportionate amount of power. make actions like blocks when necessary, more difficult. We'd have to take measures like blocking individual ISP, which is easy to get around by using a library computer, TOR or just resetting one's ISP.
Again, CAPTCHA isn't working particularly well and the spam filters worked well for the type of spam we were getting a year ago. At least without the option of anonymous comments, a spammer has to take the time to set up a disposable email account, sign up for a London Commons account, and follow a link from a confirmation email before they can start posting messages that are usually removed within a few hours when the account is blocked. Not to mention the added benefit off having numerous messages tied to one account when finding them to clean them up.
Contrast that with only having to quickly complete a CAPTCHA each time before moving onto the next message. Not only are they quicker to post, but now they're harder to find with way no to block them...
-30-
Mike.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
To make the internet a
To make the internet a viable forum for any social or political action it is essential that people feel comfortable using it; however, as mentioned by Mike, real names leave people accountable and therefore bring a level of credibility/culpability that would otherwise not be had. Real names are by no means essential to stating your case, but they are essential to promotion of a cause. "No taxation without representation" lost a colony for the brits 200+ years ago, similarly, a cause with no face will also find itself losing adherents. For the internet to succeed in its potential as a political and social tool it is essential that users see it not merely as a dumping ground for anonymous views (although an unfortunate necessity in some parts of the world/ certain situations), but as a forum in which they can find a viable leader for the ideas they agree with, and to whom they can (virtually) stand alongside of. Ultimately "real name" does put the vocal minority at risk as compared with anonymous dialogue, but it is the only step that will achieve the goals most people want: free, honestly biased opinion.
lcdev team
from what I understand the "upgrade" you speak of is actually proposed as a downgrade. To streamline the site to put focus on the features that are actually used.
to see what content is posted most, one just needs to check the tracker page (recent posts). You'll notice maybe one or two forum posts, a couple pics, one poll, and the rest is blogs and events.
We wouldn't be adding features, but rather taking the ones away that aren't used, and then highlighting the ones that are. Mix that with a more cognitive way of navigating, and things should be easier to use, and hopefully more people will understand how to post, contribute, and participate.
As someone who was 1 third of the past upgrade, I can say no one wants to upgrade. Most of the uproar was due to adding stuff no one wanted, and not focusing on what they did. This is something we learned rather quickly. So one must learn from their setbacks, and this is what we're suggesting. The biggest complaints we got were as follow:
1) lack of organizing emphasis. specifically events
2) adding features that were mostly geared towards social networking instead of fine tuning features already on the site.
I begged and pleaded for feedback, from those on the site, and those that were either non-members, or members who don't post. And I can say a lot did complain about using their real names. Not because they weren't allowed to flame, but rather they just didn't feel safe about it. There's a lack of privacy on the site, that other sites do offer when they demand a real name being used. Which is also a big part of why the comment moderation/rating system went over like a lead balloon at first. There was no anonamidity, and too much accountability.
Another complaint I got from it, was that the site was too convoluted to be able to navigate. Most people were just overwhelmed by the big menus, and crazy new layout. They wanted something simple. Usually just asking "why", why we needed recipes, or groups, or mugshots.. is a chatroom necessary? And when I explained them or pointed out the howto's, they just weren't bothered to learn. They just didn't care to use them.
So sure we can't expect that users will be encouraged to post more from some magical techno mumbo jumbo, but to be fair, community has been given a chance as well. We should atleast try to correct our overly zealous ambition of creating a super site, and try to get it where the community felt it was actually going. Before apathy set in, and people either got used to it, or moved on.
Any successful site, or project, NEEDS to have an ongoing development team. A group of people devoted to asking for feedback, and observing the needed change. All projects get stagnant. Twitter for instance is suffering a similar fate, studies are showing that 90% of its content is generated by 10% of the userbase. And added to that, its seeing a massive abandonment on membership accounts, people are moving to new things, and their forced to change. This is the same for most online community projects, MSN, ICQ, IRC, Myspace, Facebook. Blogging in general has been having a growing trend of abandonment of its users, they blog, they rant, they move on. We MUST continue to develop the site, whether its upgrading features, downgrading features, streamlining, or honing in on proper navigation. Its imperitive to the longevity of the site, and is just as parallel to the ongoing commitment to the userbase contributions.
As a final mention, I'd just like to say that I rejoined the site, because I was embarassed at how we left it after the upgrade. I felt I broke a promise to the community, because this never left beta. I should have taken the feedback with encouragement. I now feel like I can offer more to the site and hope those in the community would welcome this. The community has changed, the demand has changed, and for this to continue I think the software has to be changed to fit these.