Home Science Communication Pseudonyms and characters on science blogs

Pseudonyms and characters on science blogs

by Eva Amsen

I have a few posts (half-)written that will never see the light of day, because I don’t like being controversial, or open myself up too much on a site with my full name on it. I think that’s one of the reasons behind the famous niceness of Nature Network bloggers. We’re not being told what to write, but we’re being told to use our real name. We’re not allowed pseudonyms. With every post I have to consider: would I tell this to my parents, friends, colleagues, potential employers, crazy people, and the rest of the world? No? Then maybe I won’t put it on here, because my readers fall in all of these categories. (Hi mom! Hi crazy people!)

I can imagine it would be easier for people who blog under a pseudonym. I recently made a web trip through a bunch of pseudonymous blogs and found discussions of topics that were not even that controversial, but which I would not put on a blog-with-name. As Christina Pikas’ wonderful slide show about blog communities shows, there is a cluster of women science bloggers that all link to and talk with each other. Many of these are pseudonymous, and the authors talk about personal stuff as well as work stuff. Those are the kind of blogs where you can read honest complaints and criticism of the academic system. I’ve complained here but I was a grad student and could get away with all that. (Hey, I paid over $10,000 a year for the right to complain!) Someone on tenure track probably can’t be too critical without risking a lot, unless it’s pseudonymous, and the added stories about personal life do make you realize that there are actual people stuck in these situations (unlike anonymous reports and statistics telling the same story).

So after considering all this, I do see the merit of blogging under a pseudonym. But only a few months ago I was not so positive about it. That’s because there are other types of pseudonymous blogs, and those are the ones that more readily sprung to mind when I considered the issue before. They’re the blogs where the author seems to hide behind a fake name to behave like an inconsiderate maniac. Are they really like that? Probably. I tend to avoid those blogs.

The key thing about a pseudonymous online personality is consistency. If it is the “real you” behind merely a fake name, consistency is easy to achieve, and easy to pick up on. You can judge someone’s personality without knowing their name or without having met them.

My original opinion on pseudonymous blogs was something along the lines of “I don’t like pseudonymous blogs, except this one and this one and this one and this one.” But after thinking it over I changed this to: “I don’t care what name you use on your blog, as long as your blog is honest and you are honest about it. If I find your online persona horrible I probably just don’t like you anyway, and if I do like your online persona, I probably do like you. Just be consistent about it.”

Okay, but what about blogs written in character? Several TV characters have blogs, and the person behind the blog is not only not really that person, it’s probably not even the actor who portrays the fictional character on TV. And what about Charles Darwin and Jeremy Benthem? They have been dead for quite a while, and yet they have blogs on Nature Network, despite the rule that bloggers here should use their real name.

In all those cases, it obvious that it’s a character blog. This is not deceptive in any way. I know there are living people behind these blogs, but I read them as if the character wrote them because that’s more fun. It’s totally different from pseudonymous bloggers, where you can figure out their personality from what they say. By portraying existing characters, these bloggers have to be consistent. It’s not like making a fake personality online, which you can mold as you please, but the character is predefined and it must be very hard to play the role consistently. As long as everyone knows that character blogs are just that, then it doesn’t harm anyone.What people are afraid of when it comes to the internet is that someone might portray to be someone else and use that identity for evil. I guess you could be thinking about someone portraying a doctor online and giving out medical advice. But that can happen in the real world, too. Someone could move to another town and give out a new name and make up a whole new history for himself. People do that,

What people are afraid of when it comes to the internet is that someone might portray to be someone else and use that identity for evil. I guess you could be thinking about someone portraying a doctor online and giving out medical advice. But that can happen in the real world, too. Someone could move to another town and give out a new name and make up a whole new history for himself. People do that, internet or not. And people change their names all the time as well. I know at least three or four people who go by different names depending on the company they’re with. I even listen to different pronunciations of my own name. It’s a bit weird when you first find out someone goes by different names, but then it’s fine. And with pseudonymous bloggers, you know right off the bat that they actually go by a different name, and if they’re consistent about it, that’s fine too.

Related Articles

40 comments

Richard P. Grant January 15, 2009 - 2:05 AM

Fine.

Eva Amsen January 15, 2009 - 2:52 AM

Richard. That… is odd…
In the original draft of this post, I used an example that I have used in previous conversations with people in person, when discussing the pros and cons of people blogging under a pseudonym. The example was meant to strengthen the point that you can judge someone’s character even if they write under a pseudonym, but I left it out because it came right after the section about blogs I don’t like, and it didn’t belong there and I couldn’t place it anywhere else. The example was: one time someone I didn’t know commented on my blog under a pseudonym, but I could tell, from the comment and the link, that this was an okay person, even though it was basically a stranger. You can just tell, from the writing alone. The pseudonymous commenter came back a few times, and it wasn’t until a year later that I figured out the Black Knight’s (for it was him!) actual name, and only because you used the same avatar on NN, originally. But the point of that story was, when I originally told it to someone, to kind of contradict my (at the time) harsh opinion of pseudonymous bloggers. To say “Oh, and then I guess there was _this_ guy and he’s okay” because you can tell from comments what someone means and where they’re coming from.
And that’s why this “Fine” is odd to me, because if this was the very first thing you had ever said on a blog of mine (rather than something about “chocolate ingredients”:http://science.easternblot.net/?p=162#comment-1628 ) then I would have had a _totally_ different opinion of you, regardless of the fact that your name is there, because this is so ambiguous that the only way I can interpret it is by using all my previously acquired knowledge of you – and actually I still don’t quite feel the tone you mean. Just when I think I’ve figured out how the world works (or at least think I can read blog comments properly) you go and mess it up _again_ ! =)
See why it’s odd?
(And what _do_ you mean? Is it a sarcastic “Fine, I am glad I have your permission – not like I _needed_ it, but _thanks_” ? Here, have some chocolate. It’s 85% cocoa.)

Maxine Clarke January 15, 2009 - 2:39 PM

Is it a rule at Nature Network that you have to use your own name? Maybe Corie can elucidate. I konw that real names are encouraged here, but could it be that the Nature Network editors need to know bloggers’ real names, but that the bloggers can use presudonyms if they want? I don’t recall signing up to use my own name for From The Blogosphere although as I do use my own name I may just have skimmed over that bit!
In general, as a reader, I strongly prefer people to use their own names, though of course I see that there are all kinds of good reasons why people feel they can’t do so. Unfortunately, one can’t distinguish between people who have good reasons and people who are doing it to be mischeivous, disruptive, annoying, malicious, etc.
I am also not sure that I agree that this “niceness” of Nature Network is to do with using real names. Some of the truly horrible posts and threads one sees on blogs out there are not pseudonymous. And I have read some pretty rude and heated arguments here at Nature Network, often when religion comes into anything. Maybe we need to set up a research project to study the question!

Maxine Clarke January 15, 2009 - 2:40 PM

PS Matt Brown knows the identity of Charles Darwin and Jeremy Bentham, for example, though I don’t.

Eva Amsen January 15, 2009 - 3:29 PM

Hm, you might be right on the names. But most people _do_ use their real name on NN, so I must have assumed we were encouraged to. I checked the terms and couldn’t find anything about it. I did find this: “not to impersonate anyone else” Ohhhh, “Darwin” and “Benthem” are breaking a Nature Network rule! =P I don’t want to know their identities, by the way. I thought about it once, and then realized it would be like finding out for sure that your parents are actually Santa Claus (or St. Nicholas, in my case) even though you _kind of_ knew. I want to keep my childlike beliefs!
And, yes, religious topics always get people all riled up in the science blogosphere. I actually have a post written about Darwin in relation to religion, but I probably won’t post it because of the topic. And I’ve heard from other bloggers who also stay away from the topic, because no matter _what_ you say you’re going to offend someone somewhere. (My unposted post mentions that I think Darwin should be celebrated for his science only, and not used as an image of atheism. Even though I’m not religious myself, that is bound to make people angry, so I’m just hoping angry people don’t read this comment!)

James Aach January 15, 2009 - 6:39 PM

Interesting post, and I think you hit the nail on the head saying consistency in approach and character is what makes pseudonomous blogging something that’s a reasonable approach for some for a variety of reasons.
Perhaps NN needs a religion and science column hosted by Thomas Acquinas where those who enjoy taking offense at this type of commentary and firing back can indulge in this type of stress relief. Tommy A. could even take discussion starters like yours via email and filter them through his own name to avoid personal controversy. (Not that I’d want that job, but some might glory in it.)

Cath Ennis January 15, 2009 - 7:47 PM

Eva, your response to RG is hilarious! I’d like to know what he meant too 😉

Richard P. Grant January 15, 2009 - 7:50 PM

Oh dear. I was being—I thought—witty. Agreeing with your ‘fine’s.
That’s all, honest mum. I wasn’t using ‘fine’ in its snarky sense.

Eva Amsen January 15, 2009 - 8:14 PM

Fine 😉
(But see how it _could_ have been read differently? Stupid internet.)

Richard P. Grant January 15, 2009 - 8:22 PM

It’s all part of my campaign to restore “fine”:http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2008/12/yet-more-word-news.php to its former glory.

Corie Lok January 15, 2009 - 9:40 PM

In response to Maxine, we general don’t allow bloggers to write with a pseudonym here on NN. We make a few rare exceptions (Charles Darwin). And yes, one of the Community Guidelines for NN is that you use your real name when commenting. The vast majority of our users do, which I think is great and does a lot for creating a good atmosphere here.
I’d like to put forward that the thing I think that correlates with nastiness: lack of eye contact (not necessarily pseudonymity, as Maxine suggests).

Åsa Karlström January 15, 2009 - 10:54 PM

Eva> I have to admit, first I thought it was rather silly writing under a pseudonym, then I looked through the different fora that I have read and really, people tend to be very harsh and you never know which crazy person that enter your blog and then read and write and comment and then spread the things you have written but angles them “wrong”. And as is said before, once on the internet – never off the internet.
This is something that I know many of the “female scientist bloggers” have encountered and it is much easier to deal with if you are anonymous. (or at least not stating your own name before you have a relationship with the blogger – like the ‘behave attitude’ you talked about with BK.)
I think the main reason I blog pseudonymously is that I don’t want the crazy people to know my real name*… and that it’s not possible to google my name and get to the blog. That said, there are quite a few who “knows who the person behind the blog name is” but that is after forming a discussion and exchanging views and thoughts and questions.
*I don’t really think I would be that interesting for crazy people but I don’t like the idea for that blog anyway.

Eva Amsen January 16, 2009 - 1:13 AM

_”and that it’s not possible to Google my name and get to the blog”_
Yeah, that’s important. My sister was mad at me once as a result of Google. I had only mentioned her first name on one of my sites, but we have the same last name, obviously, and someone was looking for info on her and put something I wrote on a website about her swim team. I learned my lesson, I hope.
I do know what your blog is, by the way, but I’m not sure how I came across it. (Lots of clicking around, I assume.) I recognized you, though. So it’s not foolproof (or at least not Eva-proof =P)
What got me thinking about all this was that I sometimes want to share something that I simply _can’t_ because my name is all over the place. I can’t gossip, I can’t complain too much about having felt like crap for about a year (it was probably obvious anyway, but I made fun of it more than anything else) and lots of other little things. I had a private Twitter account once, but people found me through the associated e-mail, and I ended up with just a very public one. I used to have a closed Livejournal for whining purposes, but haven’t been there in aaaages, and everything I have online _now_ is linked to my name and visible. I can’t ever say anything personal on the internet, and I just felt bad about that all of a sudden, and _wished_ I had a pseudonymous place somewhere.

Richard P. Grant January 16, 2009 - 1:27 AM

Well, you should maybe drop me a line.
There is a secret corner of the internet…

Henry Gee January 16, 2009 - 5:59 AM

The consistency of character business is a good point, Eva, because that’s all we have to go one, whether the commenter is pseudonymous or not. And that’s just as ell, because one has no easy way of telling the difference, if all you have in front of you is a name. I could say that the Henry Gee making ths comment is an imposter. In fact, as a way of making this point, I’d encourage everyone to go find the impertinent Wikipedia entry on me and alter it radically in all sorts of ways.

Heather Etchevers January 16, 2009 - 8:41 AM

I _know_ that the Henry Gee above is an imposter, because the _real_ Henry Gee writes only in rhyme in 2009.
“You can judge someone’s personality without knowing their name or without having met them.”
This is exactly how I ended up hanging around here. I got to “know” a few bloggers who had already started swinging by. I used a pseudonym for a long time (dates back more than 20 years to when it used to be called a “handle”) and I think I might have been able to maintain impermeability, but I actually did not want to bother anymore. This said, it would be straightforward for you to resuscitate that Livejournal account, but you would once again have to gently build up readership, by constituting that new persona. Making separate comments from that pseudonym, linking to the blogs you like, and so forth. It’s a fair bit of work in order to have a place you can safely blow your top. Or you can use that persona to simply blow your top in other people’s comments, without linking back to a blog.

Maxine Clarke January 16, 2009 - 9:42 AM

Personally, I think a bit of a brake on unfettered spleen is no bad thing! As an old editor, I know how a journal like Nature receives many ill-judged and spontanous expressions of outrage, vilification etc from people. Later on, their outrage might have been toned down and published as a comment, or in any event, dealt with courteously. I think people have appreciated having that “brake” of the journal between them and a public reading of their hasty words. (If you receive a rejection letter about your manuscript, for example, it is best to wait at least 24 hours before writing to the journal with your views on the matter – and ideally best to pass your draft round a non-involved colleague for an opinion first!).
What I am reading here is that people in this thread don’t like the aggression, deviousness and hostility that is enabled so easily by the Internet tools we have developed. If the Internet was set so that it did not publish anything for 24 hours, and a person could delete or edit what they had written in that time, would it be a different place?
I’ve thought about the issues of anonyminity etc since I started a personal blog over 3 years ago. I decided to use my real name – but increasingly, my work and personal worlds have collided as time has gone on. This means there are several subjects on which I will never write publicly, while I continue to have both worlds. I don’t feel that my self-imposed restraint is a bad thing at all. (In fact, I probably don’t restrain myself enough – there are certain topics that annoy me a lot as Heather points out, and I probably should not be so upfront at how crass and uninformed I think certain “comments on the quality of journal publishing” are!)

Katherine Haxton January 16, 2009 - 11:21 AM

You do get a feel for blogs, whether you like the tone, or the character behind the words. Keeping blogs off search engines is a big deal, particularly if you have work concerns (students = concern!). There are some pretty nasty folks out there who hide behind a fake name: let’s call it what it is. There are legitimate reasons for being pseudonymous, but few legitimate reasons involve the kind of *ad hominen* attacks, utter nonsense and streams of vitriol that we associate with some fake names.
Regarding what you will and will not write in your own name. It sounds like it is the response to your opinions/ideas/thoughts that stops you writing them, rather than the though itself. Would you be more likely to write something if you knew your comments/readers supported that view and agreed with it?

Henry Gee January 16, 2009 - 11:51 AM

If I wrote solely in verse
My comments would be rather terse
But if I tried a _sestina_
You should get a _subpoena_
Or call a convenient nurse.

Kristi Vogel January 16, 2009 - 12:32 PM

Interesting post and comments, Eva. I read real-name and pseudonymous blogs alike, and what matters to me (and keeps me returning) is, as you said, the apparent honesty of the author.
@ Maxine: _What I am reading here is that people in this thread don’t like the aggression, deviousness and hostility that is enabled so easily by the Internet tools we have developed._
The aggression and hostility on teh interwebz are, for the most part I think, toad puffery, teeth baring, and fur fluffing. It’s ugly and unpleasant to witness, but probably nothing to worry about.
To me, the creepiest thing about teh interwebz is the amount of time many people seem to have to spend online – commenting, posting, and checking up on other people. That last activity is the weirdest, IMO, and it plays into the concern mentioned earlier, about whether one’s blog posts will yield real name, personal information when Googled. I used to enjoy interacting with online friends at a messageboard, until a couple of other “citizens” started making things unpleasant … and these individuals would show up at all hours, out of the cyber-blue. To me (a bit paranoid by nature), they seemed to spend all their time prowling the internet, poking and prying after secretssess (or whatever) in a Gollum-ish manner. Again, not in any way a real danger or threat, but I’d rather not be reminded on a daily basis that such people exist, and have jobs that allow them to indulge their neuroses.
That being said, I guess the research part of my job allows me to indulge my OCD …. 🙂

Heather Etchevers January 16, 2009 - 2:08 PM

Thanks, all, for the chuckles!
@Maxine: what an intriguing idea – “If the Internet was set so that it did not publish anything for 24 hours, and a person could delete or edit what they had written in that time, would it be a different place?” it would certainly make for slower conversations, and I do suspect, more civility. But what is attractive about it is its immediacy, so I suspect this thought experiment may never come to pass. My guesses about what your likes and dislikes are can only vaguely approach the real Maxine and her opinions, but they are based on my perception of the public persona, using your real name, that you’ve accreted over time through your posts and comments and so forth.
@Katherine and Kristi – thanks for reminding me that all is not civil. I think I avoid the most offensive stalking grounds, don’t have cause to worry about insufficiently occupied or neurotic students, and the rest tends to be water off my back. But I have never been the target of a real identity smear campaign as apparently can happen.
@Henry – On the other hand, you’re welcome to continue writing clever limericks.

Åsa Karlström January 16, 2009 - 4:50 PM

Eva> _I do know what your blog is, by the way, but I’m not sure how I came across it. (Lots of clicking around, I assume.) I recognized you, though. So it’s not foolproof (or at least not Eva-proof =P)_
But I don’t mind it per se, it’s the googlething I don’t really fancy 🙂 If I really wanted to be anonoumys (as in the first few months of my blogging time) I wouldn’t have linked it from anywhere, not written anything about me on the info post etc. (and not kept the same handle in different fora – big nono.) I simply would like it to be more for the person who really reads it, or something more like that?! I guess it might sound strange?
Although I think of it as I don’t like walking around with a name tag on out in public when I am talking to a few people in a group either. If anyone wants to talk to us, and be involved in the conversation, I’d prefer to know their name when they get to know mine… (although I do allow anonymous comments on my blog. Have been tempted to remove though.)
Heather> _I used a pseudonym for a long time (dates back more than 20 years to when it used to be called a “handle”)_ oh… 🙂 20 years ago. Wsa it while ‘mudding’? Mine is from that happy time with mudding and open chat sites (you know, when everyone saw what you wrote) I guess they might have been called “message boards”? or “simple rows of text when you upload and refresh”. That’s where i learned html code too 😉 ah the memories.

Åsa Karlström January 16, 2009 - 4:56 PM

And another thing> _What got me thinking about all this was that I sometimes want to share something that I simply can’t because my name is all over the place. I can’t gossip, I can’t complain too much about having felt like crap for about a year (it was probably obvious anyway, but I made fun of it more than anything else) and lots of other little things_
I can understand that. Although, it is one of those things with internet that are intriguing and at the same time limiting. We can write about anything and anyone can read it. I guess what I am trying to say is that technically you could have a blog, semi pseudonoumous or totally anonymous, which is password protected/private.
It might be a tough sell though. And it certainly limits new people… but then you could share… it would be more like IRL though, talking to a few of your special friends rather than talking at a coqtail party (as I tend to look at the internet every once in awhile).
and then one could argue that maybe it is good that it is so hard to gossip?! 😉 but since I know how good it felt to vent a bit [get perspective from people I had never met] when my life wasn’t the most peachy I have to say that the first two paragrgaphs are more in my mind than the “no gossip clause”.

Cath Ennis January 16, 2009 - 5:26 PM

Åsa, I was a bit embarrassed when you Friended me on Facebook and I suddenly was able to link your pseudonym to your real name. Once you’d told me it seemed so obvious (consistency of commenting style again, demonstrating good honest person behind the pseud!), and I felt silly for not having figured it out sooner!

Åsa Karlström January 16, 2009 - 7:49 PM

Cath> …and I was more thinking “maybe she will get mad since I’ve known who she was and she hasn’t… it never seemed to be a good time to spill the beans.
and thanks for the compliment! I’m _trying_ to be good… 😉

steffi suhr January 16, 2009 - 8:18 PM

Speaking of facebook.. do we all befriend each other there because we’re curious to know _more_ about each other than what’s just going on here?

Richard P. Grant January 16, 2009 - 8:29 PM

No. You scare me.

Eva Amsen January 16, 2009 - 9:54 PM

_”do we all befriend each other there because we’re curious to know more about each other”_
I don’t know, you friended _me_ =P
Facebook is an odd and wonderful place because I have friends from _all_ of my social circles in there, and I absolutely love it when I get comments on a status message from family, school friends, music friends, local bloggers, science bloggers, and what not.
I’m currently sitting in a restaurant with a bunch of bloggers, by the way, two of whom go by pseudonym (Abel Pharmboy and Grrl Scientist), and they’re -normal- people. I mean, I knew that, but in light of the post I thought I’d emphasize it.
In unrelated news, I also have Monty Python beer (meh, just the label is great) and I HAVE SQUISHY COW WITH ME, and she already met TWO penguins. (Two!) Also, Henry promised me a sonnet.

Kristi Vogel January 16, 2009 - 10:38 PM

_and I HAVE SQUISHY COW WITH ME, and she already met TWO penguins._
Squishy Cow travels to more places than I do.
[cries]
I never get to meet any penguins, either. Just the kissing zebras I find in tranverse sections of the pons.
[sigh]

Heather Etchevers January 17, 2009 - 12:30 AM

And what about Professor Steve Steve? Isn’t he there, too?

Eva Amsen January 17, 2009 - 12:35 AM

I haven’t seen him… I hope he’s here! Squishy would love to meet a fellow traveling black-and-white mammal.

Cath Ennis January 17, 2009 - 12:35 AM

Åsa, it takes waaaaaaaaay more than that to make me mad!
Steffi, you definitely do learn different things about people on Facebook than you do on NN. Personally I like to see photos of people who I only know through the teeny tiny profile photos on here!

Eva Amsen January 17, 2009 - 2:48 AM

SHOCKING FACT: I don’t actually look like a blue flask. At all. But I am wearing a shirt with the flask on it right now, and people either recognize me or tell me I have a cool shirt. Both are okay!

steffi suhr January 17, 2009 - 3:58 PM

Richard, I hope not too much. (What was it specifically – what I said or something on my facebook profile?)

Richard P. Grant January 17, 2009 - 8:49 PM

I can’t say. I’m traumatized.

steffi suhr January 18, 2009 - 5:38 PM

Funny, you didn’t strike me as being easily scared. Oh well.

Eva Amsen January 20, 2009 - 2:54 AM
Åsa Karlström January 20, 2009 - 8:17 PM

CAth> good to know! I kind of hoped that 😉
Eva> really? I guess I have to make a disclaimer and say I don’t look like an agar plate with colonies of Strep on them either. Although, technically I guess my nose and skin probably have some strep strains on them 😉

Eva Amsen January 20, 2009 - 9:50 PM

I just had a thought about pseudonymity: when Charles Dodgson wrote under his Lewis Carrol pseudonym, was that not the same reason people now blog under a pseudonym (not wanting his past time to be associated with his academic job)? Some of his work (as Carroll) is quite mocking of academia. But I was under the impression that people knew it was _him_ anyway.
I will look into this next weekend, unless someone else knows more about it off the top of their head.

Martin Fenner January 20, 2009 - 11:35 PM

ScienceOnline09 had a session about pseudonymity that I enjoyed very much (“conference wiki”:http://www.scienceonline09.com/index.php/wiki/Anonymity_Pseudonymity/). And there was a long discussion about this over at scienceblogs.com at the end of last year (“The Pseudonymity Laboratory”:http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/the_pseudonymity_laboratory/). I like to use my real name, but I can understand why this is not always possible.

Comments are closed.