Anonymity and Accountability
Last week I blogged Kevin Kelly’s rant against anonymity. Today I wrote about it for Wired.com:
And that’s precisely where Kelly makes his mistake. The problem isn’t anonymity; it’s accountability. If someone isn’t accountable, then knowing his name doesn’t help. If you have someone who is completely anonymous, yet just as completely accountable, then—heck, just call him Fred.
History is filled with bandits and pirates who amass reputations without anyone knowing their real names.
EBay’s feedback system doesn’t work because there’s a traceable identity behind that anonymous nickname. EBay’s feedback system works because each anonymous nickname comes with a record of previous transactions attached, and if someone cheats someone else then everybody knows it.
Similarly, Wikipedia’s veracity problems are not a result of anonymous authors adding fabrications to entries. They’re an inherent property of an information system with distributed accountability. People think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but it’s not. We all trust Britannica entries to be correct because we know the reputation of that company, and by extension its editors and writers. On the other hand, we all should know that Wikipedia will contain a small amount of false information because no particular person is accountable for accuracy—and that would be true even if you could mouse over each sentence and see the name of the person who wrote it.
Please read the whole thing before you comment.
J • January 12, 2006 6:42 AM
I had started to write something here about eBay and how it allows me to stay anonymous with respect to other nicknames inside the system, even though I am known to eBay “the company,” but that that is ok, when I wen off on a tangent about the ratings system. This gave me a new train of thought.
EBay works because the community is self-regulating to a big degree. Anonymous nicknames/handles rate each other based on contact and interactions. The system becomes karma based. With eBay, it’s necessary to have a 3rd party know both people’s identities because things of recognized value, money, services, or goods, are involved. But you see similar phenomena on places like Slashdot, where users are rated based on their contributions to the community by other members. All information that goes into a user’s registration on Slashdot can be fake, but they can still be considered a valued member of the community, with their karma ranking very high, rated “friend” by lots of people, because all that matters is the content they post (this lack of responsibility for a physical thing in the real world is why anonymity to the “3rd party” is ok here). Users who don’t contribute to the health of the community are flagged with low comment rankings, their karma goes down, they are marked as “foe” by lots of other users, with the consequence that their low-value contributions are given less weight.
If the community is responsible for itself, then anonymity is not that big a problem, the community will figure out how to route around it in order to survive and survive.