I can't figure out how to vote, but I strongly disagree with this. For a start, how you do define "real name"? The name on your birth certificate? The name people generally know you by? For those who have spent years building up an online reputaation under a 'handle' (or 'screen name'), that handle is their real name for online purposes. Besides, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for using an alias or 'non-de-plume', particularly in these Orwellian times when people can risk losing their job for making a commonsense statement like "cannabis prohibition causes more harm than cannabis itself, so cannabis use should be legalized, and supply should be licensed and taxed like Colorado just voted to do".
I have no problem with *encouraging* people to use a name they are commonly known by on the site, but I am dead against *requiring* it.
oops, I forgot to set "Vote on polls" permissions, and they defaulted to administrator only! Everyone should be able to vote now.
By "real name" I guess I'd mean "the name you are usually known by".
One difference between this and other online communities is that here we often know one another in real life, and we hold annual hui for permies to converge. Thus it seems odd that you can have a dialogue here with someone, but not be able to know that an actual acquaintance is behind that screen name.
Some relevant background:
We currently store only one field: username. Many people do use their real names in this field. (And yes, I recognise the irony that I am currently logged in as 'webmaster' - I use this account for my admin role, and my private account Richard Grevers, for general participation). There is also (recently added) a PINZ user, and you may assume that any content from that user has the mandate of the PINZ Council.
But, we will shortly commence integrating our membership records with the website, using the website as the official database. Thus we will start storing real names as well. We're not about to require 2 forms of ID when people join the society, but we are expected to exercise due diligence and ask questions if we receive a subscription from Donald Duck (or Donald Trump for that matter).
Note also that there will still be a free "authenticated user" level of site access, but this will have fewer privileges than the PINZ Member level. Authenticated users will be able to comment but won't be able to create much content. (see http://www.coactivate.org/projects/permaculture/website-content-map for current thinking)
So this question should perhaps be phrased as "should the screen name field be retained?".
If we retain the screen names, and they link through to the user profile, which would show the real name, then viewing of user profiles would only be accessible to PINZ members.
Should I reconfigure this poll with an encourage option?
And I've noted that the fact that the username is missing from comments is a bug! I'll look into that shortly.
[update]
Ok, now that I've fixed comment display I can see that you know most of the stuff I put in my reply, Strypey. But hopefully it will be helpful to readers who aren't on Council.
Richard, I think it's really positive to be having this discussion in the open, and I encourage other members to chip in with their opinions.
Yes, I think the screen name field should be retained. For site users who aren't PINZ members, there's no reason to require their common name. I like the idea that PINZ members can use a screen name to be pseudonymous to the general public who might browse here (and to Google), but other PINZ members can click on their screen name and see the profile of the real person behind it.
The effect of this is that while the general information that passes through the site is freely available to all, the personal information and thus the social networking functions are only available to PINZ members. This both protects members information, and creates an incentive for people to pay their (very reasonable) PINZ membership fee every year.
Comments
strypey replied on Permalink
Encourage, but not require
I can't figure out how to vote, but I strongly disagree with this. For a start, how you do define "real name"? The name on your birth certificate? The name people generally know you by? For those who have spent years building up an online reputaation under a 'handle' (or 'screen name'), that handle is their real name for online purposes. Besides, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for using an alias or 'non-de-plume', particularly in these Orwellian times when people can risk losing their job for making a commonsense statement like "cannabis prohibition causes more harm than cannabis itself, so cannabis use should be legalized, and supply should be licensed and taxed like Colorado just voted to do".
I have no problem with *encouraging* people to use a name they are commonly known by on the site, but I am dead against *requiring* it.
webmaster replied on Permalink
oops, I forgot to set "Vote
oops, I forgot to set "Vote on polls" permissions, and they defaulted to administrator only! Everyone should be able to vote now.
By "real name" I guess I'd mean "the name you are usually known by".
One difference between this and other online communities is that here we often know one another in real life, and we hold annual hui for permies to converge. Thus it seems odd that you can have a dialogue here with someone, but not be able to know that an actual acquaintance is behind that screen name.
Some relevant background:
We currently store only one field: username. Many people do use their real names in this field. (And yes, I recognise the irony that I am currently logged in as 'webmaster' - I use this account for my admin role, and my private account Richard Grevers, for general participation). There is also (recently added) a PINZ user, and you may assume that any content from that user has the mandate of the PINZ Council.
But, we will shortly commence integrating our membership records with the website, using the website as the official database. Thus we will start storing real names as well. We're not about to require 2 forms of ID when people join the society, but we are expected to exercise due diligence and ask questions if we receive a subscription from Donald Duck (or Donald Trump for that matter).
Note also that there will still be a free "authenticated user" level of site access, but this will have fewer privileges than the PINZ Member level. Authenticated users will be able to comment but won't be able to create much content. (see http://www.coactivate.org/projects/permaculture/website-content-map for current thinking)
So this question should perhaps be phrased as "should the screen name field be retained?".
If we retain the screen names, and they link through to the user profile, which would show the real name, then viewing of user profiles would only be accessible to PINZ members.
Should I reconfigure this poll with an encourage option?
webmaster replied on Permalink
double oops - we're all anonymous!
And I've noted that the fact that the username is missing from comments is a bug! I'll look into that shortly.
[update]
Ok, now that I've fixed comment display I can see that you know most of the stuff I put in my reply, Strypey. But hopefully it will be helpful to readers who aren't on Council.
strypey replied on Permalink
Yes, retain screen name field
Kia ora koutou
Richard, I think it's really positive to be having this discussion in the open, and I encourage other members to chip in with their opinions.
Yes, I think the screen name field should be retained. For site users who aren't PINZ members, there's no reason to require their common name. I like the idea that PINZ members can use a screen name to be pseudonymous to the general public who might browse here (and to Google), but other PINZ members can click on their screen name and see the profile of the real person behind it.
The effect of this is that while the general information that passes through the site is freely available to all, the personal information and thus the social networking functions are only available to PINZ members. This both protects members information, and creates an incentive for people to pay their (very reasonable) PINZ membership fee every year.
Hei kōnā
Strypey