I began this blog in April last year. More and more people are visiting the site. I was surprised to see that there were 7,458 unique visitors to the site last month (January 2006), they came a total of 20,677 times and looked at 59,939 pages generating 97,378 hits.
Last month the most popular posts were on whaling and of course climate change. I thank those who contributed to both discussions.
This blog is a forum that encourages diverse opinion. There is some truth in the comment by Walter Lippman, “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
Interestingly very few of the people who visit this site ever make comment. Some readers tell me they enjoy reading the comments from others and learn from the debates. Others tell me they never read the comments because they are too often “ugly”, “ignorant” and “defamatory”.
Properly monitoring comments would be a full time job – a job for which I have neither the time, nor inclination. But given the growing readership and concern from some readers, I am going to start deleting more comments. It won’t always be fair – because properly monitoring comments would be a fulltime job. I may delete comments that are spam, abusive, defamatory, off-topic or repetitive.
I have looked at the rules at Online Opinion and there are some that are perhaps relevant to this blog including limiting the number of comments per person. At Online Opinion readers are allowed a maximum of five comments in any given 24 hour period and no more than two comments per thread in any given 24 hour period.
Now such rules could really limit debate and discussion at this blog!
So I don’t intend to implement them. However, if you want to make more than five posts in any given 24 hour period, it would be great if you really had something new, important and informative to say that sixth, seventh and eighth time.
On the issue of names, Ian Castles and Roger Kalla are real people who use their real names to comment at this blog. They have families and reputations. I know some people will insist on using a nom de plume – and perhaps for good reason – but they shouldn’t necessarily expect the same level of respect, at least not from me.
It is obviously much easier to be flippant when you have nothing, or very little, at risk. The person commenting anonymously can easily dismiss and discard any mistake or misleading comment – along with ‘the name’ they were using and email address they were using.
In closing, thanks for visiting this blog and for being apart of the information exchange. Do come back and please leave a comment.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
‘Louis Hissink’, posted by Jennifer at July 22 2005, provided a degree of insight into the character of this blogodile and I have often wondered, beyond the breadth of cumultative posts, about other frequenters of this social forum.
If there was scope for a voluntary biography pane, I would happily contribute; to put a face to the fanaticism, as it were and perhaps a degree of humanity to possible perception of the inhumane.
Neil,
Many thanks for singling me out – another hit for Google to raise my score on the search stakes.
As for a voluntary biography pane, one assumes it would be similar to the Vatican’s index of books? Except in this case it would be an index of individuals.
One other fact Neil, I might refute AGW but I have not pushed an alternative view since none of us know enough about climate to do that. As a geoscientist our knowledge of the earth remains dismally inadequate.
But I am impressed that you and your mates are absolutely certain about AGW. Such fanaticism has to be admired, especially in face of such prodigious contradictory evidence that we climate-change-denialists muster.
Tip my hat.
Louis,
When did you decide that I was fanatically AGW?
I live within the last remnant of the world’s closest living counterpart to the ancient rainforests of Gondwana – and love it!
I believe there was a time when global climate held for a warmth and wetness that was relieved of the circumpolar differentials of today and more than half the land-surface of the world was covered in rainforest.
Where were the Enders of that era, championing against the imminent break-up of Gondwana?
No, I’m not fanatically AGW at all.
Neil,
Since my initial post to your reply was zapped by the Jen content censor, my apology.
I suspect you are referring to the Holocene?
Deleting comments according to subjective, undefined standards is a slippery slope. A number of the comments I’ve seen you delete have been quite neutral and inoffensive, whereas you allow some highly offensive comments and threats to be made (typically by the people who support you, funnily enough).
This conservative and feudal approach is moving in the opposite direction of recent internet identity developments which allow people to keep their real identity anonymous yet build up a consistent reputation under a pseudonym over time, ie an online identity. Many find that a reputation based online identity allows posters to be more honest and genuine than if that same person was forced to use a real name. Ask god himself: many of his most trusted Wikipedia contributors are anonymous. Imagine that. Building an organisation where key people that are anonymous! There’s also the question of relevance. Professional women musicians couldn’t get work in orchestras until they started screening musicians anonymously, behind a screen.
Further, how do you suggest that commenters prove their identity if they are one or more of the following: restricted from posting from a work-related email account; in sensitive circumstances (employment related or other) that prevent them from posting under their real name; not prominent people and without a website or blog for you refer you to; in possession of an online identity such as a blog which appears to be a proper name but isn’t actually their real name; or worried about personal threats that have been made by other commenters? How can you be sure that names of occasional visitor or ordinary commenters are real in order to justify discriminating against commenters by this loopy method? Deleting offensive posts is fair enough, but repressing views that differ from yours on a blog that claims to be open to all points of view would be bigoted.
Jennifer’s approach would give paid industry mouthpieces the opportunity to post unchallenged by those whose circumstances prevent them from posting under their real name, and hence prone to having their challenging comments deleted according to Jennifer’s whim.
Quoting Thinksys:
“Ask god himself: many of his most trusted Wikipedia contributors are anonymous”.
Okaaaaay, got it.
Laura O’Connell,
I value your opinions. What’s more, we interact, socially, on matters of Australia’s environmental politics. I remembered also, that you identified yourself on Greenpeace whaling.
I disagree with Jennifer on all manner of things environmental, but I have never felt discriminated against on the basis of industry.
Louis,
I hesitate to ask, but are you not really Don Logan of Sexy Beast fame?
The resmblance is scarey: http://www.henrythornton.com/content/upload/images/contributors/contrib-lrg_0005_LouisHissink.jpg
Neil,
I have no idea who Don Logan is.
Louis, Wikipedia is referenced frequently enough on this blog, and everywhere else these days. Its model of organisation is feudal and its founder is called ‘god’ by the Wikipedia community (geek humour). He made some great points about digital identity recently (I will post it if it I stumble across as it is relevant and interesting to think about).
Thanks Neil. I am learning a lot from the exchanges here and I really do enjoy reading the article/news recommendations and the opinions of others (where they are set out clearly) regardless of whether or not they differ from mine. Sometimes I read a post 2-3 or even 4 times before responding to be sure that I’m not firing off without first reading, comprehending and thinking.
I should point out that I don’t feel censored by Jennifer (although I don’t think she’ll be sending me a Chrissy card either! ;). Jennifer has deleted few of my comments (and only then as part of deleting a series of off-topic and naughty comments).
The commentary is an outstanding feature of Jennifer’s blog. Few blogs have this level of engagement by the audience. It’s my 5 cents that Jennifer should be careful not to erode that exchange (and should allow the playfulness where it’s not overly offensive).
Thinksys,
Wikipedia is indeed feudal in its organisation and editorial content.
Have you noticed?
Don Logan (Ben Kingsley) was a marvelously psychotic gangster with a tendency to spit his words out – good movie.
Louis – unfortunately Don wasn’t the Sexy Beast referred to by the movie’s title.
Here it is, the quote from Jimmy, wiki god:
The thing that people always latch onto is that it has to do with anonymity. But it doesn’t have to do with knowing who you are [in the real world] . We care about pseudo-identity, not identity. The fact that a certain user has a persistent pseudo-identity over time allows us to gauge the quality of that user without having any idea of who it really is.
Trying to find out who people really are is a fool’s mission on the Net. You could get a credit card ID but that doesn’t even tell you very much: This is Bob Smith of Missouri. But if an editor identifies himself as Zocky [the handle of a trusted Wikipedian], I know it’s good even though I don’t know who Zocky is [in the real world] because I know Zocky’s history on the site. I know he’s not a spammer, I know he’s not making things up — at least within the value of “know” that’s relevant in this case.
Richard,
ah, I understand the connection now, though I never watched the movie.
Thanks.
Louisies wrote: “Wikipedia is indeed feudal.. . . Have you noticed?”
Well derr, I just pointed that out to you. I’m not one of those who quote heavily from Wikipedia around here. I’ve pointed out that entries could be written by bloody commies for we all know! None of us can deny its success and its value as a popular reference though.
Thinksy,
you seem to miss the point – adopting a nom des plumes might be regarded as avant-garde and and expression of artistic individuality, it is, however, a distinct hindrance understanding natural phenomena.
The world of the artist is, to all intents and purposes, the world of imagination. And in its proper place, a wonderful addition to human experience.
But to conflate that with the mundane necessities of living is a mistake.
Go tell someone in a witness protection programme that they’re sacrificing their artistic integrity.
Thinksys
Feudal means Leader, and the rest, who follow.
Wikipedia is, however, an encyclopeadae created by a rabble, and while ostensibly democratic, is, in practice proscriptive.
It is, from experience, poltically correct.
Louisje, judging by several semantic points you’ve tried to make, you’re a few entries short of a dictionary.
Out of the night that covers me,
black as the pit from pole to pole;
I thank whatever gods may be,
For conflation with that mundane necessity.
Thinksy,
what are you on about with people being in “a witness protection programme that they’re sacrificing their artistic integrity”.
Where?
Louisje, I was having some fun in equal response to your wilfully narrow view that a nom de plume is justifiable solely for artistic reasons. Did you bother to read or consider what I wrote above, the quote? I don’t think so. The issue for some is obviously broader than you are considering.
And as for matters of credibility, well fat lot of good using your real name does in your case! 😛
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
I’m just a loyal toiler, a simple horse in harness and not the sharpest knife in the drawer. People might say that I’m using a pseudonym, but it probably says more about me than my given name. (Now that wasn’t a very motivational psychology thing to say was it?)
And while I congratulate people who wish to comment with their own name, it might be worth considering that we are not all equally exposed by identifying ourselves. For example, someone whose business is public commentary is advantaged by identifying themselves – a fairly modest level of courage is required. Others may find themselves threatened professionally by the same level of public exposure. Remember that a “public” servant is actually the servant of an individual Minister.
I think the content of a comment is the most important criterion. I have nothing to gain other than a little fun from commenting here; this is, after all, just a form of entertainment, a modern equivalent of a soapbox in Sydney’s Domain. Public discourse as a whole is an important component of a free society, but let’s not take it too seriously at a personal level. If my silly pseudonym puts anyone off, well so be it. I’ll try not to wilt in the absence of universal acclaim.
I note:
“Louisje, judging by several semantic points you’ve tried to make, you’re a few entries short of a dictionary
The appelation “louisje” is a diminitive either in Dutch or Afrikaans, and assumed to be a term of endearment between male homosexuals.
I am not sure that Thinksys has any further steps dowm which to descend, but we’ll wait and observe.
And hiding behind a nom des plumes, Thinksys has effectively signed his/her metaphorical death.
Reading the previous posts – How Shakespearian they seem!
Obviously trout fishing in the Drakenburgs, from experience, may be more successful.
Oddly the fish I caught then had interesting names like, Thinksy Silly, or Silly Thinksykaffir, to recall a few.
Seems to me and I’ve used a few Nom de blog’ or Nom de Chat’ wotever over the last six years, If a commenter stays true to Nom de Blog in a discouse and discussion, its the point of view that matters.
As for the number of entries by a person, Blog Owners (or the BO) for short, own rules should apply. On the rudeness issue, seems to me time out applies and that should take into account elite bullying by so called named experts.
As fer norty language seems to me that of the posts I’ve read lately at this blog the all time comment record in recent times seems to be on undies.
Personally even tho anonoononmysly, I come to read and try to make some sense as to differentiation between Science, politics and Psuedo or religoscience. But the fact is, half the time I get lost and dazed in the threads.
Have fun.
Oh and anyone can call me Jacky or even jackie ifn they want.
Somewhat on a tangent, but Jennifer mentioned above the popularity of the whaling posts above. It appears that the Japanese are using whale meat for dog food. It’s on the BBC world website, but link rejected here.
Just got home – and have just read the 28 comments following my post from late yesterday afternoon. Some of the comments – together and individually – present a strong argument against my prejudice against nom de plumes. Thanks Jack, Boxer and Thinksy – more food for thought.
I was wondering about testing some of the ideas and I know readers are interested in who comments including their motivations.
What if I follow up on Neil’s idea and we start a series of posts about individuals ‘real’ and ‘internet’.
Assuming sufficient interest/material I could post something each week – sometime ago I posted this on louis without first asking his consent http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000753.html .
Comment followed that I should post something about Ender – I was less confident that Ender wouldn’t be offended, so I asked Ender and from memory he never replied. Maybe I should just have done it?
Many months have passed and I now nominate the following four ‘personalities’ for individual ‘posts’: Boxer and Thinksy (as internet identities that make an important contribution to this site), Neil Hewitt and Ender (as internet identities and also real people who make an important contribution to this site). If I don’t get too many emails of protest or too many protesting comments, I might have a go. Neil might send me a photo of himself in the Daintree as a start. I have one of him with his children – but would prefer to leave them out at this stage?
I have of course once posted on Warwick Hughes, http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000559.html .
PS Thinksy if you send me the link to the whale meat for dogfood story I will post it. They use kangaroo meat for dogfood in Russia.
Face it – we love it. Jen’s blog is the blog we love to hate.
If the characters didn’t exist we’d have to invent them. We’re addicted and opinionated.
I’m obviously right and the rest are wrong. But it’s proving them wrong that’s the fun.
Louis incidentally reminds me of a character I met in the pub at Kununurra. Arguing about something scientific – he was wrong with way out ideas about geology. And I was right of course.
After much drinking and arguing he exclaimed angrily” I refuse to accept your logic. I will never accept your logic”.
So we sat there sullenly, quietly, staring at the bar, drinking incremental beers (the only words uttered softly were – “your shout”).
After an hour he said “Suppose I was to accept your logic”. And then we argued for another hour before he again said “I refuse to accept your logic”. And so it went on for a long night and many iterations of this. Don’t remember how the night ended – at the Diversion Dam was the last thing I remember
But it could not possibly have been Louis as we would never accept my logic. But even such I would still be happy to buy Louis a beer in that pub.
“Gentlemen in England now a’bed shall hold their manhoods cheap that they did not blog with us upon St Crispin’s day. For he that sheds his blog with me today shall be my brother, be he ne’r so vile”.
The website Thinksy references above: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4700418.stm .
Ya roit ya know Phil. It’s comments like your little anecdote that put the world in perspective. Only a god with a sense of humour could have created humans. We just couldn’t be this silly by accident.
Comment deleted by Jennifer. 4.34pm.
Phil-leted,
Perhaps you could specify the month and year for your anecdote?
1985 June or July I think.
Phil,
In 1985 I was living in South Perth and had been living in Perth since 1983, returning to the Kimberley in August 1987. During that period I also never went to Kununurra.
I guess I am one of the longer term nom de wotsits on this blog and others.
I comment on a few blogs and always use the same email address and moniker – Steve. I think this is ok – anyone who comes to this blog should be familiar with me and my opinion, and can group the comments together as coming from me, and attach an identity to ‘Steve’.
I don’t use my real name because I wish to keep my professional life separate from my commentary here.
For others, it either doesn’t matter, or it can actually help your career to increase your rep by attaching your real name to your blog post – eg if you are a journalist, opinion writer, academic, or think-tank employee.
Because it’s not fair, I try to avoid using what I know about a person that isn’t uncovered in their blog comments as a debating point, should I have heard of them before of if they are easily googled. I’ve probably broken this rule many times, especially with people that are actively using their reputation to make a point. But i try not to.
I can use pretty strong words sometimes, but try hard to limit my worst for people who i have experience with and i think are either are able to deal with it and are dishing it out back (eg IanM) or seem especially worthy of it (eg. Louis, Joe Cambria). The latter only get negativity from me if I have plenty of experience with them in the blogosphere. Eg. I debated cordially with Louis for about a year and a half on the old Bizzare Science blog before deciding he was just a crank. And even then i was using the moniker ‘Steve’ so he has the same level of experience with me.
Even though they get a bit nasty, I value the exchanges i’ve had with IanM of late, and think it would be a shame if they were censored.
Of course, its Jennifer’s blog, and she should censor as she sees fit. I’ve only once been censored here for a comment i thought fairly harmless, but the comment had no real content, so i didn’t mind. I generally think this blog is managed very well.
Steve, thanks for the comment.
One point, it is presumptious of you and others to assume a ‘think-tank employee’ gains from having a blog and commenting at a blog. ‘IPA people’ are getting used to the idea that I have this blog.
I have a family and worry about what some of my family and also colleagues think – particularly those who have no other experience of blogging – about some of the posts and exchanges that follow.
Oh,
I am a crank am I?
“somebody eccentric: somebody who has unusual or eccentric ideas and opinions, especially ones that are strongly held (informal)”.
The Bizarre Science blog? For one year and a half? That is a bit of an exaggeration, I recall it being about 6 months in all.
But do tell Jen’s readers what eccentric ideas I strongly hold to? Because I would like to know too.
Hi Jennifer,
Sorry, I didn’t really intend the think-tank employee comment at you. I added that in because on a lot of the other blogs like john quiggins, troppo etc, you will often see regular commenters from various think tanks. No sly point scoring intended 🙂
Yeah, you could be right about 6 months instead of a year and a half. I was commenting on Bizarre Science for a long time, before you were there regularly i think, i might have got mixed up. In any case, 6 months is still plenty of time. Since then I’ve also seen you comment on a variety of blogs besides this one.
I occasionally comment on Climate Audit, Warwick Hughes, plenty on this one, and I don’t count Lambert or Quiggin since comments there are few and that is it.
I do a weekly article for Henry Thornton, which I am busy writing now.
Ladies and Gentlemen of all philosophical persuasions – may I suggest we give Jen some feedback to take to her IPA management. I think IPA should be very happy with Jen’s blogging. I think she has cornered a very difficult area of the environmental debate and I certainly think they get a treasure trove of bias, bulldust, inside gossip, leaks, facts and references from many Googlers all hammering to prove a point. Where else can you get that sort of dynamic feedback.
Where else can you give right up an industry firebrand like Ian Mott and actually survive the encounter (well physically at least). Where else can you probe the exotic minds of right wing zealots like Rog and Louis without resorting to fisticuffs or 4 x 2. And gee even luminaries like Ian Castles drop by to slum in the blog trenches. Safe virtual encounters for the highly opinionated.
You might sense an IPA spin – but she has told you explicitly who pays the bills and that she isn’t working for Greenpeace so her overall philosophical position should be of little surprise. Anyway give her a serve about it occasionally to keep her on her toes.
Anyway – whatever you reckon give Jen some support for her management’s indulgence of “the blog”.
Now enough being nice – en garde !
I am a bit tired of this “they are paid by private enterprise therefore must be corrupt” crap. It is a main plank of John Quiggin yet no evidence of coruption is ever supplied, only evidence of non compliance or a moralistic smear.
This puts me in mind of the ALP attack on the NSW Greiner Govt in the late ’80’s, by using the now defunct ICAC they worked on the literal interpretion of ‘corruption’ ( I have coffee with milk therefore I am guilty of corrupting coffee and milk) and claimed the govt was corrupt.
Greiners biggest crime was the ‘user pays’ policy.
As it turned out ICAC finally cleared all of corruption charges but the accused had retired due to being totally pissed off.
So who won and who lost? – Greiner is sought after for his business advice and Murray died after leading a succesful business. And NSW got lumped with a Govt that played the cheap political line, declaring the State was going clean and green.
And guess what – no water, power iffy and the user is still paying
Louisje said “I do a weekly article for Henry Thornton, which I am busy writing now.”
Henry Thornton. . . OHHHHH that ANONYMOUS economist who uses a nom de plume for reasons not artistic????? Ahhhhhhhhh.
i dont read climate audit or warwick hughes much at all, and though i haven’t lately, i used to read your henry thornton article often.
I do read quiggin and lambert, though less than i used to.
Thinksy,
From the way you spell my name, I get the vague impression you might be a South African typified by that famous comical cartoon character Van de Merwe, a non too bright individual.
I second that Phil. Getting up to your elbows in discussion gives you a lot more knowledge and credibility and feedback on the weak points in your position than newspaper articles (how 20th century?)
I find Jennifer’s blog and the comments a lot more thought provoking and challenging than any one-sided IPA article in the Fin by an Alan Moran or Mike Nahan or whatever.
I think this blog is great for the IPA. I think people are more likely to respect what you have to say when they have an opportunity to respond.
yeah I agree: invaluable learning exchanges, particularly with Ian Muppett, Louis Hissyfit (aka ‘Captn Pugwush’), Roger the Cabin Boy (‘aye aye’ Captn Pugwush!!) and Ivory Castle.
Heh heh, she puts the new deletion rules to the test!!! 8)
Due to the lack of supporting evidence that I am a crank, I may now assume that I have been de-cranked and may return to civil society.
Dont flatter yourself Thinksy, you are not that important.
Folks, when thinksy sums the blog on one hand someone should be a wee bit concerned. Can I suggest we have an obligation to use two hands in inviting good comment across the board?
When I dropped in there was some links from Graham’s Online Opinion in subjects I was interested in and I thought at once Jennifer’s place was a good reflection. But please let it grow naturally.
Real people find a life online too. I did some time in chat rooms including IRC. Towards the end of that early period several groups got very involved in online counselling in particular personal issues. At one point a few locals and Sydneysiders met at Tilleys a Mecca for PS types in the ACT. Before that most of the misfits used to meet at Gus’s in town over coffee under a grapevine and just close enough to ANU.
From recent experience with the ‘have your say’ episode on our Canberra Times editorial www pages Jen’s place needs some rules of engagement. I still don’t know what the group management did to our Jack & HYS but a few of us regulars including the odd international got very concerned before it was all blown away late last year.
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/displayops.asp?class=your+say¤t_page=2
One of our big issues in the end was ID’s coupled with ‘freedom’ of speech. About then I suggested privately to some in the core that they look at Graham’s blog for some serious discussions.
Why use ID’s? From day one in the chat rooms good people were flamed until the moderators found time to block or wipe out their PC. The same thing happened to me on ebay. Friends too were forever rebuilding their PC or changing local vendors. Politics, fanatical customers, councillors and private lives with families don’t mix.
Has anyone noticed that peace didn’t last long. I blame Jen for baiting us with provocative posts on politics and the environment. It’s not our personalities or egos I’m sure.