Anonymity

[Sidebar]

I've been pondering this issue for a couple of days. In an earlier thread (viewtopic.php?f=54&t=55331) there was a brief discussion of how to improve the quality of postings on this site, and one proposal was to remove anonymity. I responded:

Removal of anonymity would stop me from posting. I expect my employer would quickly reprimand me for my participation in some of the so-called "discussions" on this site.

One response was:

Point taken. It does make me wonder, and not as any kind of slight on you Sidebar, why we are so prepared to say things behind the mask of never 'having to be accountable' that we would be unwilling to say to someones face.

My reply to atpl53 is that what I have to say here is not to any one person's face, but rather to anyone who is willing to spend the time to read what I have to say. This may include management at my employer who have the capability and intent to take punitive action against me. I expect there are other people who feel similarly.

There's been discussion on this site regarding the need for legislation protecting aviation safety whistleblowers, as well as references to a confidential TSB report leaked to the media. How do these people feel about anonymity?

I'm looking forward to reading the replies, anonymous or otherwise.

[loopa]

The real problem is that everybody is a topgun pilot and in order to remain up there, the strategy is to literally @#$! the shit out of as many pilot's as possible. This is where the industry is small concept comes in.


I blame the culture of aviation.



Seriously though, good post !

[Cat Driver]

There's been discussion on this site regarding the need for legislation protecting aviation safety whistleblowers,

A whistleblower comes forward and is willing to expose wrongdoing, they deserve protection.

Anonymity allows anyone to attack anyone else with no fear of having to back up the attack with fact..because they have no fear of being identified.

[Doc]

I don't think "attack" is the right word, Cat. I does allow for a certain differing of opinions without the repercussions sometimes associated with taking the "unpopular" viewpoint. It allows us to "stir it up", thereby kick starting the thought process.

[Widow]

Just curious, but how does the release to the press of a TSB draft report fit into the subject? Are you talking anonymity of the "informer"?

[Nark]

I'm of the school of thought, put your money where your mouth is.

If you don't have the intestinal fortitude to put your name behind what you say, you don't have the credibility in the first place.

Which leads me to this: This isn't a free-for-all forum in which to run your suck. Some people, throw rocks from the comfort of a crowd, while others have enough balls to stand alone in front of the proverbial tank.


I've met, and shared many pints of beer with users on this forum. I have and will continue to respect their anonymity.

[snoopy]

There is nothing I say on these forums, that I would be afraid take ownership of, to say in public, or say to any one of you face to face. Therefore, though I post with a username, my identity is open public knowledge. Occassionally, for emphasis, to take ownership of the content, or whenever else I feel it is warranted, I will sign my post with my real name.

I understand full well why most would prefer to remain anonymous.

Speaking out and signing your name to it definitely has its consequences, but the point mentioned above holds true too. It makes it far easier to attack an entity, make antagonistic comments or say appalling things when protected by a cloak of anonymity.

People are often crying about censorship and the right to freedom of speech on these forums. I wonder how they can justify freedom of speech when the author is unknown and the target is not?

Part of who we are, our credibility and how we are seen as a person by those around us, is attached to what we do and say. If we hide behind a false identity in order to say what is really on our minds, then how can this be real?

If some of the comments and attitudes portrayed by the various users on these forums, are indicative of the true nature of the person expressing them, then it alarms me to think which real live people I may have misjudged horribly. It is even more alarming to think they may be responsible for people's lives.

Unfortunately, I don't think we are a mature enough as a human race, to be both open-minded and truthful.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

[Sidebar]

Just curious, but how does the release to the press of a TSB draft report fit into the subject? Are you talking anonymity of the "informer"?

Yes.

Having been involved in a TSB investigation, I'm somewhat familiar with their confidential draft report review process. It was made very clear to me that the confidential draft I saw was to be used only to provide comments to the TSB and was not to be released to third parties. I expect the TSB was displeased by the confidential draft of the Sandy Bay report being leaked to the media, and I also expect the reporter who wrote the story about the report would protect the anonymity of whoever it was that leaked the report to her. I expect that the report being provided to the reporter was conditional on protection of anonymity.

[Widow]

That's always the problem with anonymity isn't it? If you've got the right resources, it's seldom difficult to figure out who the anonymous reporter/informer is.

To me, that underscores the need to have legislated protection against repercussions for people who report/inform when it is for the "public good".

It isn't so much about being "anonymous". Real whistleblowers seldom remain anonymous for long.

That, of course, from someone who has never been anonymous on this forum.

[PanEuropean]

Snoopy:

There is a "third way" down the middle between absolute anonymity and outright disclosure. I have been encouraging this for about 5 years now on a very large and very active Volkswagen discussion forum that I moderate, and it works very well. It addresses and substantially solves the problem identified in the first post at the top of the page:

..how to improve the quality of postings on this site...

although I am not entirely sure how it would work given the unique and "aviation specific" issue of whistleblowing.

The solution is to ask forum members to post on a first name basis, in other words, to append their first name to the end of their posts, and to endeavor to try and address others by first name when responding to posts. This simple action reminds everyone that there is a 'human being' at the other end of the electronic connection, and has worked well to improve civility and cut down on 'drive-by garbage' type of responses, where someone posts useless and non-contributory responses simply because they can, much like a dog that urinates on every fire hydrant it passes, whether it needs to relieve itself or not.

There are some folks who may not be comfortable with using their own first name for various reasons (e.g. conflict of interest with employer, famous person, etc.) but this problem can be overcome by just asking the person to pick any first name and use it on a consistent basis. The end result is the same.

As for the need for anonymity when 'whistleblowing', I think it is self-evident that if someone wants to blow a whistle, they should first create a new user account and post from a computer other than their regular IP address. They can still pick a first name as a nom de plume.

Michael

[Invertago]

I sign my real name to PMs and know a few people from avcanada in my off line world, but I don't like to put my full name on the public forms because then I'm at a disadvantage as people may know me while I have no idea who they are when I first meet them.

[square]

My employer would not support my publicly making comments on anything of a remotely questionable nature. Since it'd be public I'd be representing my company and be basically limited to what I would say to passengers.

[PanEuropean]

Hi Square:

Jeepers, neither would my employer. The only option any of us have in those circumstances - whether we are absolutely anonymous or whether we sign our full name to every post - is to recuse ourselves from discussions that present such a problem.

Michael

[snoopy]

PanEuropean,

I have read your (various) posts with interest, and I like your perspective, and this idea.

As I said earlier, I don't believe we are yet mature enough, as a human race, to embrace truthfulness and open-minded thinking - therefore, I have no solution to offer.

Your solution is an interesting one to try in the interim, though we would be well on the path to a better future if everyone would be brave enough to use a real first name. I guess that is up to the individual to decide.

Regarding whistleblowing, and the need to create another identity to do it - isn't it time we stopped living in fear? Is it so wrong to stand up for what is right, and to support others for doing so?

Best Regards,
Kirsten

[square]

Pan European, not sure if you were being sarcastic there or not, but let me elaborate. My point was that it would rather limit the system.

New pilots would not feel comfortable asking questions on anything they're not clear on or it'd be a public fact that Bush Air has dumb pilots. Nobody would feel comfortable asking about things like how to deal with icing or Mountain Tour Co. would be publicly scolded for having wreckless pilots who fly in icing like that airplane that crashed in Buffalo.

I guarantee you that owners/ops mgrs/cp's would check the site to see what their pilots are saying so that they can question them about it the next day. The site would fall into disuse and be replaced by an anonymous forum in one month.

I've got no qualms about anything you can pin on me from my postings, go ahead and search away since there's a convenient button on everyone's profile that will display everything they've said over the years in order.

[canpilot]

Wasn't this what the known user forum was for? hehe

[snoopy]

square,
I would think that any company would be proud to have "wreckless" pilots, it is likely the "reckless" ones they woulld really be worried about....
Kirsten B. (for clarity over the other Kirsten)

[square]

Snoopy, I'm sorry I made a spelling error. You have clearly pointed out that I am unintelligent, thank you for your input.

[snoopy]

square,
not unintelligent - just human! You have to give me just a little credit for a punny...
ther r manee daze eye halve truble with mye speling...

Kirsten B.

[square]

I just got the pun now.

lulz.

[PanEuropean]

Regarding whistleblowing, and the need to create another identity to do it - isn't it time we stopped living in fear? Is it so wrong to stand up for what is right, and to support others for doing so?

Hi Kirsten:

Well, the whole topic of 'whistleblowing' is a subject unto itself, and I would not want to see it become a distraction that knocks this discussion off the topic of "how do we improve civility" here in the forums.

This particular forum (AvCanada) is kind of unique, because many of the participants here - myself included - are discussing topics that directly relate to our work lives. This same situation applies to the 'Pprune' aviation forum. These two sites are exceptions to the more common practice of forum participants not having a direct occupational link to the theme of a discussion forum. For example, if I participate in a Volkswagen owners' forum, or a Windows computer users' forum, I don't have to be concerned that what I write will have any effect whatsoever on my professional life or my income stream.

Note that in my earlier post, I mentioned that it is not even critical that participants use a 'real' first name - the increase in civility that comes from using names takes place whether the name is real or not. It is an outcome of everyone acknowledging (by way of a greeting) that they are talking to another human being, and indicating (by way of a name at the end) that they, too, are a real live person. Forum nicknames (usernames) just don't accomplish the same thing.

Pan European, not sure if you were being sarcastic there or not...

Hi Square:

No, I did not intend any sarcasm at all, not in the least. What I meant is that if a forum member is employed in the industry, and a topic comes up that presents any form of conflict of interest, about all that member can do is to refrain from participating in that discussion. This concept is not new or unique - it's much the same as what has always been done in verbal conversation. For example, if I'm having coffee at the local flying club on a Saturday morning (that being more or less the pre-internet version of what this forum is) and the conversation turns to something that I have a conflict of interest in (for example, discussion of an accident in which I am involved in the investigation process), then I just don't participate in that conversation - there's nothing more to it than that.

Michael

[atpl53]

I've been pondering this issue for a couple of days. In an earlier thread (viewtopic.php?f=54&t=55331) there was a brief discussion of how to improve the quality of postings on this site, and one proposal was to remove anonymity. I responded:

Removal of anonymity would stop me from posting. I expect my employer would quickly reprimand me for my participation in some of the so-called "discussions" on this site.

One response was:

Point taken. It does make me wonder, and not as any kind of slight on you Sidebar, why we are so prepared to say things behind the mask of never 'having to be accountable' that we would be unwilling to say to someones face.

My reply to atpl53 is that what I have to say here is not to any one person's face, but rather to anyone who is willing to spend the time to read what I have to say. This may include management at my employer who have the capability and intent to take punitive action against me. I expect there are other people who feel similarly.

There's been discussion on this site regarding the need for legislation protecting aviation safety whistleblowers, as well as references to a confidential TSB report leaked to the media. How do these people feel about anonymity?

I'm looking forward to reading the replies, anonymous or otherwise.

My original comment did not look at the issue of 'whistleblower' anonymity. I was, instead, responding to the concept of posters who will say things or promote concepts or 'float' ideas which disregard the side of 'free speech' which demands responsibility for what we say. I have followed this site for a while now and there are times when I have read comments which have little to do with 'freedom of ideas' but are written with the intent to hurt, degrade or disregard. So, I have a bad day at the 'office'. I get on here and lampoon my employer or flying partner or operations or...and some one else picks that up, runs away with it, distorts it. The next thing you know someone else, who has NO first hand knowledge of the situation, makes a 'factual pronouncement' about my employer which maligns their character. This is then carried 'forever' as FACT. I cite this from firsthand knowledge.

I have read wild and sometimes unintelligible speculation about accidents. I have read postings by people requesting information or clarification on various subjects only to read responses which degrade the issue or turn into 'personal' attacks on the poster. I have watched as misinformation is propagated as 'truth' and then repeated until it lives as such.

....

Speaking out and signing your name to it definitely has its consequences, but the point mentioned above holds true too. It makes it far easier to attack an entity, make antagonistic comments or say appalling things when protected by a cloak of anonymity.

People are often crying about censorship and the right to freedom of speech on these forums. I wonder how they can justify freedom of speech when the author is unknown and the target is not?

Part of who we are, our credibility and how we are seen as a person by those around us, is attached to what we do and say. If we hide behind a false identity in order to say what is really on our minds, then how can this be real?

......

Well said snoopy.

I am not advocating for moderator censorship. I am advocating for self censorship and even peer censorship. If someone throws a 'rock from the crowd' it takes a bigger, stronger person, in terms of character, to not toss the rock wildly back into the crowd but rather to seek out the individual with the intent for understanding. I may not agree with their logic or reasoning in the end, but at least I have afforded them the dignity of expression and at the same time will have allowed myself the opportunity to 'see' the world from a perspective which is other than mine.

...and that's all I have to say about that.

Dan

[Rockie]

Anonymity doesn't negate valuable input on this forum. Alternatively, full disclosure of identity is not what I consider brave nor does it validate nonsense. And if someone is going to be a belligerent a**hole, putting their name behind it doesn't make me think any better of them. Besides, let's try not to take this stuff too seriously here.

This is the internet.

[PanEuropean]

...I am advocating for self censorship...

Hi Dan:

You hit the nail right on the head. That's the only approach that will work on a large scale.

Moderators can deal with the occasional problem participant (usually by PM), but in the big scheme of things, it has to be self-control.

Michael

[Widow]

Hi Michael,

I very much like your idea of using an "address system". I think you are quite right that perceived anonymity sometimes results in folks forgetting that they are talking to real people, with their own fancies and foibles.

As you stated, the moderators can only do so much. It is about self-control. Since it is pretty much a given that some users will always lack self-control, I can only reiterate what I said in the thread linked by Sidebar in the opening post:

If any user has concerns about a particular post or thread, feel free to PM a mod or make a report (the exclamation point at the bottom of the post). A moderator will then examine your concern and, if deemed advisable, edit the post or pull the thread for review by “the team”. Sometimes we don’t see what you see until it is pointed out. Sometimes the only mod who has had a chance to review a thread does not feel they have enough knowledge of a particular issue to make a call. We are human, as well as being mods

It isn't about being "thought police", as some might suggest. For the most part we allow users to think/say what they want. But a modicum of decorum is requested - and recognition that abusing that decorum can result in banning and/or problems (like legal threats) for the website owners/administrators.

Perhaps some should keep in mind, when posting controversial thoughts, that an Ontario Court Judge did order the owners of FreeDominion.ca to reveal the email and IP addresses of some "outspoken" users. The same could happen here.

Stay safe,
Kirsten S.