Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl: the Markov chain saw
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (reason)

by tye (Sage)
on Mar 11, 2004 at 21:25 UTC ( [id://335983]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (no)
in thread Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?

The poster rather clearly stated their reason for choosing anonymous posting. I don't feel I acted in contradiction to that stated reason.

whimsically[...]other than to say "I have the power"

I'm sad that you can't think of any other reason why I might do this. I was trying to be helpful. There was no whimsy involved on my part. Yes, I am often whimsical or perverse, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised if sometimes such is attributed to me erroneously.

It's been stated elsewhere that there are certain activities and procedures that will enevitably lead to the authorised person carrying them out to encounter private information. I also seem to recollect that this was a) rare, b) came with the suggestion that any such authorised person making such an encounter would keep the information to themselves and "try to forget it".

A request was made for feedback on an issue that I feel is important to the Monastery. It raised a point that I feel is a valid item to be concerned about and I wanted to investigate the situation as an administrator dealing with a potential problem. In the course of that investigation I went through a process to get summary information about what votes the author of the node had received when not being anonymous. That process was successful and required that I encounter some private information (their likely usual non-anonymous handle and information about many of the votes cast upon that). I honestly don't remember what that handle was nor much about the votes other than what I said in that node.

I would have preferred to privately ask the author if it would be okay if I looked into this, but to "privately ask" would require that I pierce their anonymity anyway. I was reluctant to do the search (and considered asking publicly) and then reluctant to report my findings, but both times I decided that the potential benefit justified the action. I can certainly see how some would take issue with those judgements and I may well take issue with them myself in the long run.

In part, I think a big issue here comes down to image. I currently care less about instilling an image of propriety than about actually acting with propriety. Unfortunately, when it comes to privileged actions, there will never be great transparency so this preference for substance over image is probably ill advised in this case.

I feel lucky that quite a few people that I respect actually trust my judgement (near as I can tell). But I need to remember that there are lots of people who have no reason to trust my judgement so I should be trying to appear trustworthy (my need to actually be trustworthy is based on other reasons). (I should probably try to phrase that more clearly... rather, I *have* tried to phrase that more clearly but have now given up, despite realizing that it may be misread and give the wrong impression, thus proving that I still need work on appearances.)

Thanks for being frank. I'll try to do better (both at instilling trustworthiness and at actually treating the boundaries more strictly).

- tye        

  • Comment on Re^5: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (reason)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^5: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (reason)
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 11, 2004 at 23:25 UTC
    I don't feel I acted in contradiction to that stated reason.

    As the original poster, I feel I should mention that I completely agree. I do not feel violated that tye pierced the veil of anonymity. In fact, the reaction I had more than anything was amusement that he would even bother to look up the history of the votes I received. I appreciate the effort and the information he gave. In short, I cast my vote (pun intended) on the side of thinking it was an appropriate thing to do.

Re: Re^5: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (reason)
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 11, 2004 at 23:58 UTC

    My use of the word whimsical was to indicate that your decision was capricious, ie. ungoverned, and entirely at your own perrogative, rather than perverse or light-hearted.

    I wasn't attempting to call your integrity into question. I recognise that you did not anounce the OPs monkname.

    The only point I had was that anonymity is only worthy of the name if it cannot be trivially (in terms of the decision to do it, rather than the process involved) violated.

    Had I been the OP in this instance, I would have preferred a "If you'll contact me privately and identify yourself to me, I will look up the statistics".

    I would say that I consider the privacy issue all together more important that the rate of downvotes.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks.
    "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
    "Think for yourself!" - Abigail
Re: Re^5: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (reason)
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 11, 2004 at 22:29 UTC

    Honestly, I, for one, have never doubted your integrity tye, and I still don't. But, if you don't view the violation of anonymity as an extreme measure, and there are a dozen other god's and I don't know how many other admins with such power (perhaps with similarly relaxed views)... well, the history of 'good intentions' doesn't inspire my continued confidence in the integrity of anonymity and privacy on perlmonks. Which is sad, because I rather liked it here.

      violation of anonymity

      Temporary "violation of anonymity" to one person, when the reason for anonymity was clearly given. As far as I'm concerned, the person is still (or is once again) anonymous. I don't know their usual monk name. During the short time that knew it, I didn't tell anyone else.

      Yeah, I don't see how this was "an extreme measure". Maybe you could convince me of it, but I'm not even close at this point. I do take anonymity very seriously.

      Now, actually doing something that I'd call "violation of anonymity" is something that I would consider extreme.

      Which is sad, because I rather liked it here.

      So are you concerned that a couple of gods might connect your non-anonymous monk name with some nodes that you posted anonymously and therefore you wish to no longer use the site? If so, then I'd appreciate some insight into why that is so strong a concern for you. If not, I'd appreciate some insight into the more extreme problem you are projecting from this incident.

      - tye        

        Yeah, I don't see how this was "an extreme measure". Maybe you could convince me of it, but I'm not even close at this point. I do take anonymity very seriously.

        What concerns me is simply the principle of anonymity. Either it is taken very seriously (as you say you take it to be) or it is not. Had this site never offered anonymity that would be fine. There are other forums I participate in that do not offer anonymity, it isn't a big deal.

        But if a site does offer anonymity, and takes it seriously, what does "taking it very seriously" mean? I say taking it very seriously means acknowledging that anonymity is the choice of the anonymous party --- anonymity belongs (in the essential sense) to the anonymous party and not to anyone elses good judgement. Taking it seriously means acknowledging that *any* breaking of anonymity (whether you believe it to be harmless or to be in the interest of the anonymous party) merits the term "violation", and should only be considered under extreme circumstances (of which I still cannot think of any in the context of perlmonks that would necessitate such a breach). Anything less is pretense.

        In other words, and please don't take this wrong way: if I can't have anonymity from you I don't really have it at all do I? Obviously, in order to do the behind-the-scenes work you and others do around here (I haven't said thanks lately, thanks), you have necessary access to certain private information. But my point is this: Anonymity and privacy aren't discretionary powers to be held by the granting authority, rather, actually granting anonymity and privacy always --- and by nature --- involves a relenquishing of such power (at least in principle, even if only in trust). And this is where we seem to differ in principle at the moment.

        You asked:

        So are you concerned that a couple of gods might connect your non-anonymous monk name with some nodes that you posted anonymously and therefore you wish to no longer use the site?

        I'll answer a slightly different question, because the question of my participation isn't predicated on a fear of being discovered. If you stated that you understand and agree with my position and consider anonymity to be inviolate except in extreme circumstances, and all the powers that be agreed to abide by such a policy, I would have no problem trusting in that policy (that had essentially been my tacit understanding all along). If, on the other hand, you stated that you still felt that anonymity is something you or other gods are free to breach at your discretion and judgement on a case-by-case basis, then yes, I would regrettably cease participation.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://335983]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (4)
As of 2024-03-29 15:51 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found