From: ghsvax!hal@uunet.UU.NET (Hal Finney)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 17:28:45 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Anonymous discussion on Pax
Message-ID: <9301040105.AA26178@nano.noname>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


There has been some discussion on the Pax mailing list (mail to
anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au to subscribe) about anonymous posting
and mail.  Here is an excerpt from one posting that I thought was
interesting.

From: mjr@netcom.com (Matthew Rapaport)
> >anonymous posting is just another noise source.  Very  little is riding
> >on who "wins" arguments on Usenet.
> 
> True, so I'll try something more serious. Suppose you were trying to
> convince some small group of vulnerable people to commit some crime, or
> aid in one directly or indirectly (perhaps for political reasons).
> He/she/they might resist one provacateur, but all *10* of *you* assure
> him/her/them that you've all done it (for which reason you must
> naturally hide your identities), it must be done, etc.
> 
> *******
> 
> >The idea of positive reputations is designed to help with the problem
> >that anonymity could lower the quality of postings by reducing
> >accountability.
> 
> The WELL tried a completely anonymous conference once. It quickly became
> a mire of flaming viciousness, lying, trickery and backstabbing. It was
> unbelievable to see how fast it got nasty, and in an otherwise
> reasonably well behaved user population.

Does anyone here have information on this experiment on the WELL?
That sounds like an interesting data point.  Presumably they did not
try to press on with some kind of rating or reputation system.

Hal
74076.1041@compuserve.com