User:Christine Bush/PseudonymPolicy

Why Citizendium Needs to Modify Our Real Names Policy

---

This is a DRAFT article, now under development. When finished, the author's intention is to invite consideration of it by the Citizendium Council.

---

> Caution: Bold Text Ahead. Dear Reader, please note that this article uses bold text. While its author acknowledges that in some contexts, bold text can be construed as "yelling", she also wishes to reclaim this useful text style for the purpose it served for centuries prior to the advent of online discussions, namely to draw the reader's attention to key phrases and concepts, thereby making content easier to scan.

     Author Representative suggests that our current real names policy should be revised to allow for users to contribute using pseudonyms.

1. The current policy is reactionary, defining itself as much by what it is not as what it is. This discourages participation rather than inviting it and serves to undermine that which it seeks to provide: a sensible, "mature" alternative. There is general agreement that CZ needs more contributors, so it does not make sense to continue enforcing an unnecessarily restrictive policy simply to avoid the opportunity costs of anonymity when there is a well-established third option: pseudonymity.
2. A real names policy is indiscriminate and, in some cases, unfair. The list of persons potentially discriminated against is not insubstantial: gay and differently gendered persons, women who must exercise caution with regard to currently or formerly abusive spouses, as well as authors, entertainers, journalists, or bloggers with an established reputation using a pseudonym.
3. There are benefits to using pseudonyms, including the ability to leverage established virtual identities on other platforms.
4. A pseudonymic policy does not prevent contributors from using their real names if they choose to do so.
5. The main argument for enforcing a real names policy has thus far been because an organization such as Google or Facebook wants to become an authoritative identity provider to other sites. This is clearly not part of CZ's mission.
6. The proposition that knowledge with a provenance is somehow more valuable is very difficult to defend and in some ways flies in the face of the tenets of the collaborative production of knowledge. Should someone cite a CZ article in a paper, the names of those contributors are not even included. Why should they then be required? All that is actually entailed in our mission is credentialing of editors, and even credentialing itself does not entail a real names policy.