Not linking to anonymous websites

UPDATE: I wasn’t very clear in the below. If you have an anonymous website, you’re welcome to add it to the fill-in page where you make comments, and it will show up as a link to your name. That’s fine. What I’m referring to is giving us a complete link to a specific post you’ve written on your website, one that you’d like people to read. If you do that, your website shouldn’t be anonymous.

_______

Just a note: Sometimes readers use this site to publicize their own posts, and I have mixed feelings about that, as it’s sort of like piggybacking or advertising, which is addressed in Da Roolz. On the other hand, sometimes those posts have good stuff in them, and are relevant to the discussion. So here’s a new policy: if you put in a link to a post you’ve written on your own site, you must somewhere publicly identify yourself on that site. My own site isn’t anonymous, but I do recognize that people sometimes want anonymity in their comments here. But if you want your own writing or your own site publicized, there should be a link on that site to who you actually are, and by that I mean the name of a real person.

You have every right to have your website be anonymous or pseudonymous. But I don’t have to link to it. This policy is because I believe people should stand behind what they write.

I’ve added this to Da Roolz.

Thanks,
The management

14 Comments

  1. Posted August 28, 2017 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    What they haven’t mastered copy and paste?

    On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Why Evolution Is True wrote:

    > whyevolutionistrue posted: “Just a note: Sometimes readers use this site > to publicize their own posts, and I have mixed feelings about that, as it’s > sort of like piggybacking or advertising, which is addressed in Da Roolz. > On the other hand, sometimes those posts have good stuff in ” >

  2. yazikus
    Posted August 28, 2017 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    A prudent addition to Da Roolz!

  3. Posted August 28, 2017 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Ouch, my intent was to add Why Evolution is true to my blog roll only. I didn’t think ahead that it would trigger a reciprocal request or such thing. So I will add indentifying information, but I would not take it badly if you remove my blog or any requests that are generated from your blog. I understand that this requires effort on your part. I can and would be willing to remove WEIT from my blog roll and no offense taken on my part. I enjoy WEIT very much.

    • Posted August 28, 2017 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

      I’m not sure what you mean. Links to blogs from comments are okay. I will clarify that above.

      • Posted August 28, 2017 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

        I had recently added WEIT to my blog roll. Then shortly thereafter this post about not linking to anonymous websites appeared. I felt given the timing that it was I that triggered a automated response. And since I get notices that someone added my blog I was led to believe that you got the same. Hence my apology for being anonymous, and as I saw breaking DaRoolz. So maintain WEIT on my roll of websites but expect nothing in return.

  4. danstarfish
    Posted August 28, 2017 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    This is probably more of side topic, not directly related the topic of the post. I once experimented with wordpress and played around a bit with a blog that never went live. One day after commenting here, I discovered that without my knowledge wordpress was automatically inserting links to the never really started blog under my name here. Since I had commented here long before I had a wordpress account, it never occurred to me that it could be doing that.

  5. Posted August 28, 2017 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    I like this.

    I shamelessly cite my own posts here, but only when relevant (anything else would be spammy and counter-effective), and the principle that you don’t cite yourself on someone else’s blog unless you are willing to share your identity is a good one.

    • sensorrhea
      Posted August 29, 2017 at 9:46 am | Permalink

      Rules are rules but I, as an anonymous blogger, really don’t see how it follows.

  6. Posted August 28, 2017 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    FWIW: JRLRC is José Ramón López Rubí C., my name, as noted in my (linked) blog. I have never commented anonymously. I agree with your new rules.

  7. Posted August 28, 2017 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    How would you verify that a post written by someone who signed it with a real-looking name was in fact signed with a real name?

    • Wunold
      Posted August 29, 2017 at 12:41 am | Permalink

      A good point I like to mention in discussions about “real names” on the Internet.

    • Posted August 29, 2017 at 6:36 am | Permalink

      Of course I can’t be 100% sure, but sure as shooting you can verify that a “Jerry Coyne” exists and is pretty much the same person who writes on this website.

      • sensorrhea
        Posted August 29, 2017 at 10:01 am | Permalink

        Does this solve some big problem for you of spam on your site? Or is it more a matter of extending the principle that you don’t generally approve of anonymous speech on the web?

        In my opinion speech stands or falls on its own, and reasons to demand author identification are extensions of the ad hominem fallacy.

  8. sensorrhea
    Posted August 29, 2017 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    This is pretty arbitrary, but, hey, whatever, it’s your site.


%d bloggers like this: