Re: <nettime> A Puff Piece on Wikipedia (Fwd)

[Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh@well.com>]

In a world where Commandante Marcos, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Salman
Rushdie all manage to get their ideas out under their own names  or pen-names
(and in fact saying who they are actually helps them disseminate their work)
why on earth would it be assumed that anonymity (without even a pen-name)
would  be a particularly helpful way to spread "subversive" ideas? To have to
establish reasons to take seriously what you say every time you want to say
anything would be a phenomenal additional burden.

If it really worked inthe 18th c., and I remain dubious of that, it was only
because publishing was so much harder then that works could become known to the
small intellectual public far more easily than would be the case now.

Furthermore, anonymous people are at far more risk of being persecuted,
tortured and killed than those who have some sort of public reputation, such as
Aung San Suu Kyi or even Zacarias Moussawi.

Michael H. Goldhaber
Brian Holmes wrote:

> Keith Hart writes about anonymity:
>
> >So what's the point for nettimers or wikipedia? I have several in mind, but
> >I prefer for now to ask you, dear reader, what you think it might be.
>
> I reckon (a little crudely I guess, but y'all know me by now) that
> the point will become obvious when someone has an idea dangerous
> enough to the equilibrium of our cream-puff-and-horror-show society,
> that publishing it anonymously will be a necessity and no longer just
> a demonstration of modesty or dandyism.
 <...>

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net