On-line credibility

I watched Thursday, along with many others it seems, the unfolding of a bizarre saga--a phenomenon that seems unique to the world of the Internet. I first noted the multiple posts at HughHewitt.com that detailed the ongoing feud between LA Times reporter Michael Hiltzik and blogger Patrick Frey, aka Patterico.

As described by Frey, it is a dispute about the use of pseudonyms in blog posts. Sounds fairly innocuous at first, but it ultimately cuts to the fundamental issue of credibility.

Anyone who has read this blog from the beginning, knows that Sim and I have a certain amount of experience with the world of online message boards/chat rooms and blogs. The internet in general fosters a sense of anonymity and these kinds of venues specifically leave one feeling like it’s impossible for folks to really know who you are.

In the case of The Place that shall remain Nameless, both of us are familiar with folks who obviously cloned themselves for one reason or another in hopes of adding a sympathetic and supportive voice to their own arguments. In Sim’s case, he’s even been accused of that by someone else. In my case, it was a temptation I fell prey to once for a short time (about 2 weeks) and something that once I was “outed”, never occurred again.

In both our cases such use or alleged-use of pseudonyms was not at all a big deal. A close reading of Patterico’s post sheds insight on the real nature of the problem with Michael Hiltzik’s behavior.

Hiltzik's response wants it to be about the simple use of pseudonyms:

...seems to think that pseudonymous posting is deceptive, though he can’t articulate why that should be, given the abundance of pseudonyms and anonymity on his own blog starting with the name on the banner. He makes a stab at rationalizing his selective exposure of one out of his scores of pseudonymous commenters by complaining that my comments were “acid-tongued” or “insulting.”

As Patterico makes clear, and his commenters echo, the problem is not that. It's not the "what" rather it's the "how" and the "why":

Why does this matter — or does it? After all, I’m obviously not objecting to use of pseudonyms by bloggers and blog commenters. How could I be? I mean, you’re reading a post by someone who calls himself “Patterico.” And, while I made the decision to make my real name public long ago (it’s Patrick Frey), many of my commenters use pseudonyms. So what’s the big deal?

Here’s the thing. I am actually a strong defender of people’s right to comment anonymously, or pseudonymously. I myself was semi-pseudonymous for the first several months of this blog. But I don’t think that commenters should use pseudonyms to pretend to be something or somebody they aren’t.

The problem is presenting yourself as a third-party to pimp your own arguments and ideas. As I stated earlier, it's a fundamental issue.

Hiltzik's behavior was fundamentally dishonest and deceitful. The simple fact that it can be done doesn't make it any less wrong.

If we are to accept a premise that such deceit is acceptable in the blogosphere, then the blogosphere is unreadable. How will you ever know who or what you're reading is accurate?

Worthwhile blogs run on two things: Expertise and Credibility. Expertise makes us want to read somebody and their credibility is why we read them. Take it away and what have you got?