I expect this to be one of the most controversial Government 2.0 posts I’ve written. And though it’s not the most important, I am certainly writing it in all seriousness.
You think that nickname you’re famous by on the Web isn’t a detirment to Gov 2.0? You’ve got to be kidding.
I remember covering my first board meeting, back around 1998. It was the Delta College Board of Trustees, and I took one look and decided that if I could just get our school newspaper cartoonist to draw these sleepy, corpulent and wrinkled folks running our school, the students would go nuts. These leaders were about as alien to a fit, hyper 20 year old as airplanes to aboriginal Brazilians.
Now, I’m a bit older and fatter myself, and I know the truth. The people who run things in this country, especially at the lower and broader levels, are just like these trustees.
And that has everything to do with your Web 2.0 nickname. They won’t get it, and they’ll think less of you (and by extension, all of us) for it.
Now, I’m not saying that anyone can’t or shouldn’t use a nickname. I just want you to think about what it means. You’re choosing to fit in (yes, fit in) with a culture that is not in power, and to show the culture that is that you don’t really think much of them, either.
If we’re to have a shift in government, you might want to think about that.
CampaignAdvertisements.com: Digital Consulting & Ad Strategy. 
39 responses to “Nickname? Lose it.”
I’m active in most socnet environments as “lewisshepherd” … Guess that means I agree 🙂
Oh, sure, NOW you tell me. Well, I started on the Web as levyj413 in nothing remotely resembling a professional context, but now I’ve put it out there as my Twitter ID, so I just don’t want to change it because it changes the URL. But on GovLoop and in the future, sure. And hey, my real name’s on my Twitter profile.
I always hate when I get a resume of someone I’m interviewing beforehand and I Google them only to find out that they are also known as “ULuvMyBooty.” I could (maybe) understand the whole personal/professional life separation if I was interviewing folks for a job as a butcher or tailor but for an alleged communications professional? That tells me right away that you know nothing about branding, social media, or basic Internet searching ability – all qualities that are pretty much required of a “professional communicator.”
Good post and a good reminder to people, especially those who are looking for a job.
Steve, thanks for the reminder, I forgot to take “ULuvMYBooty” off my resume.
I am someone who has more than one career. There’s my day job career, and my career in alternative culture. Generally I’m boring enough in my day job that people are pretty clueless about my alternative culture career, but if someone really wanted to they could figure it all out. The thing is, I’ve left so many traces online they could never possibly be eradicated. The only possibility would be a new identity courtesy witness protection. I started my linked-in account with the intention of only featuring my day job resume, but it seems that many of my alternative culture friends have friended me here. Anyway, for the past few jobs my bosses have been aware of my non-dayjob life. It is what it is, as a certain ex-boss used to say. Check this quote from the lyrics to Momus’ song “The Age of Information” –
“Your reputation used to depend on
What you concealed
Now it depends on what you reveal”
http://www.phespirit.info/momus/19970107.htm
But is it _right_ to think less of anyone for having a nickname?
What I smell is that lingering musk of Victorian decorum, that old starched “formality of proper appearances”.
Or, the bad ole double-standard. Ain’t it just still fine that Wayne Gretzsky is “The Great One”, Bruce Springstein, “The Boss”, Jennifere Lopez “J-Lo”, and so on…on…on.
A nickname is usually a term of endearment and even if “WE”, that is, the ROYAL WE don’t get it (background of the nickname, symbolism, or other signficance), the ROYAL WE as not amused as WE are, shouldn’t be passing sentence on people with nicknames as if they were defendants before WE magistrates. It’s very top-down, very magisterial.
Today is about tolerance, not tightening.
The days of Queen Victoria are long done. Lighten up. Nicknames are a plain, linguistic, cultural fact of human life.
bob
While I have adopted the moniker “mrmerlot” in all of the social web networking platforms I use, I can by no means consider myself “famous.” Adriel, I think it has more to do with *the nickname you choose* versus simply having a nickname. In this day and age of transparency, our personal selves and our professional selves quickly merge. In so doing, the younger generations (I’m barely Gen X, btw) cross boundaries that weren’t crossed in earlier generations.
As to the choice and use of nicknames, I’m relatively ambivalent. My nickname, mrmerlot, is safe, has meaning (which reveals part of my personality), and often sparks conversation about why I chose it. Had I chosen “ULuvMYBooty,” that, too, would have spoken something about my personality (in a bad way). And it wouldn’t be nearly as versatile. I have felt entirely comfortable double-introducing myself at public meetings and putting my nick on my name tag (necessary protocol in social media get togethers).
Thanks for the very interesting post and the dialog it has launched. I am not in government now but I guess I see your point. I on most social media with my full name, like on twitter with @bobgourley . On the other hand, there are many reasons to protect privacy on the net and for some they may want to use a totally unrelated nickname and I support that too. I guess I’d advocate a massive movement of govies into social media and if the first wave is with most folks using nicknames that would be fine with me, those can be changed later.
seriously contemplating changing my name by deed poll to @colinbeveridge – wonder how the Inland Revenue, Health Service Banks, employment agencies and other data pillars of the establishment might respond?
What d’ya mean you haven’t got a second name? You have to have one – our systems need it!
Seriously… it’s not just those older folks in the boardroom who won’t take you seriously; it’s the rest of the world, too.
I’m 24 and worked in hospitality for five years before moving onto my profession. We’d get resumes faxed to us sometimes at the hotel from people who used their MSN/Hotmail accounts in their contact info. That’s fine… except their Hotmail emails were completely unprofessional. “stud0884” or “princess_ho2323” don’t generally look good on a resume or CV. Like… duh?
I think it’s pretty much common sense to create an online identity that won’t come back to haunt you… but common sense isn’t so common, as the saying goes. Sometimes I do feel bad for younger people who maybe once had a stupid email or online identity, and have rebuilt their personal brand in the meantime, but have their past come back to embarrass them. Then again, I ask myself why I don’t have that problem and wonder why they’d make themselves look so stupid to begin with…
@Bob Ashley: I agree with your sentiments, but this strikes me as exactly the same issue as tattoos: people *should* feel free to do whatever you like, and per your arguments, *I* will do my best to ignore unseemly nicknames. Defining “unseemly” as “something that will raise eyebrows in a sizable proportion of people you meet.”
Perhaps as the digital native generation becomes the hiring class, everyone will feel that way.
But today, you’re definitely still dealing with people who don’t spend their lives online, both among the hirers and the clients the hirers will send employees out to work with.
So, like tatoos, it’s a choice: do you proudly declare your independence from old-world thinking and trust you’ll find employers, co-workers, and clients who agree with you? Or do you play it a little safer and not choose outrageous nicknames?
Hey, lighten up! What happened to everyone’s love fest of last week with Chris Brogan’s permission-granter, http://www.chrisbrogan.com/youre-doing-it-wrong/ ???
Have tattoos, have a nickname, be your whole self and relax. As you say Adriel, “If we’re to have a shift in government, you might want to think about that.”
Far more damaging to one’s reputation within the Government 2.0 community than having an innocuous, fun, memorable nickname like @mrmerlot or @cheeky_geeky is writing blog posts like this one.
I’m happy that Bob Ashley brought up musicians as an example of famous – no, revered – people who have nicknames. I’m pretty sure a number of them performed at the Inaugural Concert. While it would have been ‘nickname honorable’ for Stevland Judkins to sing, it’s a lot cooler to introduce Stevie Wonder. I wonder if Barack Obama “took him seriously”?
Hmm…other serious people who have nicknames…WASPs. News flash: Cricket, Skip, Kitty, Chip, and Trey are on the school board, run the country club, and control local politics. And I’m sure they’re fine with nicknames. So are Muffy and Potter.
Know who else has nicknames? Something that perhaps hits a little closer to home – writers. Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) comes to mind. So does Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel). What about George Orwell (Eric Blair)? More recently, Michael Crichton wrote eight fiction books as John Lange, one as Jeffrey Hudson, and one as Michael Douglas. If anything, these nicknames surely helped them in various ways.
Much more importantly, nicknames, also known as ‘handles,’ are a huge part of computer/geek/hacker culture. When in Rome, as some are wont to comment, it is only fitting that as government people use *their* technologies and discuss *their* topic of expertise that we adapt somewhat to *their* culture. One could even make the agument that it is insulting to *not* have a handle that is memorable and reveals something about the inner person. Ask yourself, would Phiber Optik, Agent Steal, or Tweety Fish take *you* seriously at DEF CON or ShmooCon?
It is hard for me to believe that a Vice Admiral or Assistant Secretary or corporate Vice President would think that someone “thinks less of them” by having an online handle. They are most likely oblivious, in which case they don’t know and don’t care. And if they are indeed dialed in to the Gov 2.0 scene, and ask a question about “cheeky geeky” or whatever, then perhaps that can be seized not as a moment of shame, but an opportunity for a conversation about how people outside the government commonly behave online. Teach them “geek speak.” Give them the geek anthropology lesson they’ve never had. By the time I’m done speaking with someone like that, not only are they not put off, I’m the first guy they call with a question on the topic.
I would absolutely love for someone looking for a speaker, consultant, etc. to tell me outright that they loved my resume, background, and skills, but that they didn’t take me seriously because I used an amusing handle on my Tumblr account. Frankly, I wouldn’t take *them* seriously. I would never let that person or company live it down. I would remember it, reference it, talk about it, blog about it, tweet about it, and maybe even put up a Google ad about it so that every time someone searched for that stodgy company pathetically attempting to do Web 2.0 they would see AdWords saying that they only hired people with boring personalities – work for Cheeky Consultants instead! What person in the 2.0 world would want to work for a boss or company so restrictive when the entire industry is built on good will, customization, and expressing yourself?
And why stop the railing at nicknames? Why not discriminate against silly blog names, the nicknames of people in someone’s social network, or companies an applicant previously worked for? “Oh – you have a normal handle but you tweeted 78 times to @IrishPrince, how weird!?” Well, he was the force behind creating TSA’s blog, practically the model for listening to the concerns of citizens about a loathed government agency. At what point do we wander from out-of-touch into clueless? It’s interesting to note that Ariel Waldman, who worked as a consultant for NASA CoLab (one of the best early experiments of government-to-citizen outreach) has a resume that includes working for SuicideGirls.com, Pownce, and Shake Well Before Using. Should they not have hired her?
There’s certainly a middle ground. No one needs to have a nickname or a handle: to each their own. I certainly don’t advocate for or against them when I talk with people. But pronouncing that they are harmful is useful only for getting blog traffic. So no, there is no “controversy” – this blog’s title can safely be ignored.
Blame AOL and CompuServe. Seriously, nicknames are nothing new. What’s new is that they are now self-designated. Traditionally, people received nicknames from others who had a personal or professional relationship with the individual. They knew your identity first. Enter the Web.
Likewise, anonymity, through nicknames or not is nothing new. And at times has been used to good (anonymous donors to a worthy cause or to a struggling family) as well as bad (KKK).
I consider the importance of Adriel’s position as we use the Web more and more to govern and advance online democracy.
Just think of sitting in a town hall with people coming to the mike and identifying themselves as “ULuvMYBooty,” (wonder if someone really has that). Or receiving a petition with pages filled with user names instead of signatures. Adriel pointed out in an earlier blog about the brave men who signed their names to the Declaration of Independence. Signed today, that historic document might have included among its signers:
“BunchOBenjamins”
“TJeff2597”
“JHanCockadoodledo”
And Bob Ashley, your point about tolerance versus tightening is an important one. Still, while I like to think of myself as tolerant, I know that accepts a level of disorganization and a lack of structure. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it supposes a lack of accountability that, as Adriel notes, is important in democratic governance processes.
There is still a sense of fun about online nicknames, and I find amusement coming across creative ones on Twitter, in blogs, and in email addresses. Though, just like traditional nicknames, there are times to use them and times to table them. My “Beaver” nickname when young (because of my LAST name!!) was fine when out with my buddies or in class. However, I would have cringed if a co-worker, or worse supervisor, had used it in the office.
This post got me thinking about unlikely persons with even more unlikely nicknames playing a role as trusted advisors. One notable example immediately came to mind:
Meet rock guitarist Jeff “Skunk” Baxter, formerly of the Doobie Brothers. His story, recounted here in this 2005 MSNBC article, is fascinating.
@Mark – I think that Adam stated it best when he said that “I think it has more to do with *the nickname you choose* versus simply having a nickname.” It’s not that someone uses a nickname – it’s what it is and what you do with it. And, I also don’t think it’s a be-all, end-all either…can someone overcome a ridiculous nickname and be thought of as a professional, well-respected individual? Of course they can. It can often start you out at a disadvantage. Back to my earlier example of “ULuvMyBooty” – yes, I cringe when that’s the first thing I see and that individual is automatically at a disadvantage in my eyes, but that’s easily overcome if they’ve got a blog, Twitter account, etc. that’s adding valuable content.
Steve – When everything is an option, there is nothing to debate.
@cheeky_geeky,
The examples you raise aren’t what Adriel is talking about… or at least, that’s not how I read this.
Cheeky Geeky isn’t necessarily embarrassing; sexy_grrl_1981 almost always is, though. That is, unless sexy_grrl is applying for a job as a dancer or something. I know it’s not fair and people *shouldn’t* judge you based on something so trivial, but the fact is they DO.
Musicians, artists, creative writers… people in an arts field or more creative profession, I think, I have more leeway in this sort of thing. Their handles/personas can be more fun, more lighthearted, without people judging as harshly. For tattoos and piercings, it’s a similar deal. I remember going for a job interview at an airline whose image was very classic, clean-cut sort of throwback to the 1950s look. I have a small piercing on my upper left ear, a small silver hoop – you can barely see it when my hair is down. As part of the interview, she asked me if I were willing to take off that piercing on the job, and I said sure, no problem. Some compromises need to be made if you’re going for a certain job.
I also think things will change as our generation grows up and becomes the people who hire, though. I personally wouldn’t judge someone too harshly if they had a silly nickname or something about them that could be perceived as controversial – tattoo, piercing, whatever. But for my generation, entry-level, looking to build our first career from the ground up, needing to gain the respect from older people who come from an entirely different generation of thinking… I wouldn’t push the envelope too much. Not if you want to get into corporate or government jobs in this country, at least. Agency work would be different – I interviewed at a more creative agency where the interviewer had three shades of purple in her hair and a tongue ring. And part of the interview was a personality test from Cosmo. Cool lady; would have taken the job but it was wrong timing.
Anyway, I think there’s a balance between having fun with your online persona and remembering that the persona you create will stay with you wherever you go. If you’re not corporate-government mentality and want to get into a stuffy, corporate environment, first off, why are you applying there… secondly, I avoid using my “hot_dude_gets_laid” email address…
I think nicnames aren’t entirely bad if they’re a form of BRANDING. For example, take my name, Public Records Guy. Why this name, because my blog is named it, I am in the process of trying to BRAND it, so I think it’s appropriate. Do you agree, or disagree?
I’m learning stuff from this basket of colorful comments. Adriel deserves some credit for mounting a bold, stimulating thesis. I’ve nudged my own position as a result of the discussion. It’s dialectic. It’s useful. It’s fun.
Thanks,
Bob
I’ve actually been thinking about using a “handle” in Twitter because my real name uses up too many characters. Some nicknames tell you just a little bit more about a person; the trick is to make sure it’s something you want anybody to know.
When I originally signed up for Twitter my name was already taken, and so I had to come up with a nickname, though it’s simply my first name & my birthdate. (Meghan1018). I have to agree for the most part with you Adriel. Nicknames that are somehow connected to your brand or job, are obviously an exception and I don’t think apply to what your saying here. And as far as authors who use pen names or entertainers who use stage names (as mentioned by Mark) those are obviously not at all relevant to this post. Because the pen name or stage name are a part of the professional brand used by the person in question. This is more about online forums being used as a professional networking tool. When those online forums are being used in a professional manner I agree with Meznor’s comment. Though many of us younger folks could care less, we are still having to deal with an older generation who may care. I have a rose tattoo, and it is quite feminine and sweet, but I’ve still been asked to keep it covered up at every job I’ve ever had (with the exception of my days working in radio, but different medium). It’s all about how you want to carry yourself and be seen.
I posted the same thoughts over on GovLoop, but it seems like there is more energy here, so I’m eager to get feedback from your readers:
As you know, I am @KrazyKriz on Twitter. I use that name because (a) it’s memorable and (b) it’s a nickname based on my last name…which is a tough one. I don’t use @AndrewKrzmarzick because (1) it’s really long and (2) it’s easily misspelled, which can be problematic in a forum like Twitter. I’ve thought about changing to GenShift – shortened version of my blog name for consistency and branding, but I’m open to suggestions.
I feel boring with my non-nickname online handle now. That is all. [Though I could elaborate with the internal debate we had on the GovTwit name].
What an interesting conversation. How fun! I say, be yourself, be happy and be smart. To each his own. Some will judge, others won’t, but I think real change….goes beyond a nickname. So, I say…MAKE a name, roll up your sleeves, and get involved.
=)
While I completely agree with Adriel I hope that not too many people will read this and start to moderate their behavior. Let me explain why this is my “HOPE”; When individuals put a persona “out there” for the rest of us to see – we will see it.
The wonderful fact about sitting in front of a computer in a dorm room, bedroom, office or wherever is that we feel anonymous. We put stuff out there assuming that others (outside of our current immediate band of associates or friends) really don’t care what we have to say. And by virtue of this we say things that expose core values and principles. While this is potentially dangerous, many don’t have enough life experience to know that. An example of this can be found in Facebook accounts of young college males that put all kinds of stuff out there that portray themselves as tough living fast-driving studs. This is an attempt to gain prominence among their particular sphere of influence. Other times, blogs, comments and forum comments can be read to garner insight about the real attitudes individuals hold on certain subjects.
The point is that after the words are out there they are a record of one’s “position” on that subject. I, for one, am happy that people don’t completely realize that this is the case. In the world in which I operate – that kind of intelligence is wonderful in helping to paint an in-depth picture of what a person really believes and holds as a core value. The internet has created that “Permanent Record” that our parents always warned us about. The difference between what they told us about and the internet record is that the internet one is REAL!
@levyj413 I don’t think there is any confusion over your nickname. In fact, I contemplated AOH, my initials, for space on Twitter but have been using my full name most of my adult life. I think the tattoo example is right to point.
(Full disclosure – I’ve used nicknames, even used to sign off on newspaper proofs with the moniker “CrazyMan.”)
@sradick Def this applies to hiring as well. I’m just thinking about the real world where you might be proud as hell of the nickname you’re famous by. But if it gets flagged, you’d never even know why you didn’t get the job. That’s the way it is, and crashing the gates is usually less effective than infiltrating them.
@larrybob Thanks for dropping by, colleague! I think your success in government shows you take your personal responsibilities seriously. It also helps to be close the inside to defray misunderstandings/conceptions about activities outside of work. Great quote about this brave new world.
@bashley I think you’re light years ahead of the prevailing culture! I want to change it too, but I do want people to think about the culture as it does exist. Thanks for your thoughtful participation in this discussion.
@mrmerlot Nothing wrong with the nickname – and you’re very transparent about your full name. I think you get the cultural thing – more of relevance to your thoughts further down.
@bobgourley Always helpful to hear from someone outside the debate!
@colinbeveridge True! We have too many “names,” many of which consist of numbers. Biometrics aren’t too far off.
@meznor Thoughtful comment – truth is that people ARE judging you by what you present, and it’s not all wrong. Nickname users certainly aren’t a protected class. … Great follow-up comment as well!
@Gwynek Love is all well and good. I’m for it. I also value wisdom. Thanks for commenting instead of bailing on cranky old me!
@cheeky_geeky As I’ve mentioned before, I have high esteem for you. That said, threats in a social media or real world context always hurt the people making them more than anyone else. And you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t think the issue was important, despite your protestations to the contrary. No one holds the top of the hill in this thought space. I’m working for the good, I hope you are too. “Brand ambassadors,” your term.
@dbevarly Thanks for your on-point analysis. It was a short post, but yes, it’s about culture. As our multiple identities as human beings merge due to these tools, we have to think a little more. I find it more fun than scary, but it does take work!
@planetrussell – Wow! That is a great counterpoint. In the gov world, I guess it is a question of whether your behavior is meaningful and valuable. That’s what we should all aim for!
@publicrecords – Totally, business branding is not my point. Plus, you work in a secretive industry with code names and such (kinda like Michael’s “Skunk” link – it DOES fit into the convert culture.) What I’m talking about here is more communications, outreach and consulting to change the path of gov to more collaboration, openness and direct democracy. (You also don’t see me advocating Courts 2.0!)
@Sarah – Very funny! See larybob’s comment above, the lyrics quote.
@meghan1018 You and I grew up in similar ways, I think. Worked a lot of jobs, probably had to pay for most of our college with help from grants and loans, now married with kids. You get it because you’ve been there. Perception is reality. And yes, when I became a security guard at age 18, I had to remove my new earring. Didn’t put it back because needles make me faint.
@KrazyKriz I’ve participated a bit in your discussion on Twitter about the nickname. And the last name IS a tough one. Has anyone ever mentioned it in the offline world? That’s what I’d like to hear about.
@dslunceford I think you redeemed your playfulness with GovTwit!
@SocialButterfly Thanks for fluttering by! You are tres cool, and I guess a lot of this comes down to whether you are trying to bring gov into Web 2.0, or Web 2.0 into gov. There is a difference in the advocacy strategy that many of you make good point to. The one thing I would say is, I see you online all the time, but sometimes I can’t remember your real name. At least I can always get you with a DM!
@AndyWillis When a cop praises the revealing online culture, beware!
I also got comments like, “What if your name is Dave Smith?” Then yes, of course, a catchy branding name is more like essential!
The Coke avatar commercial during the Super Bowl. I think it ads to this discussion. Liked when the girl at the counter had to drop the ork guise to make the connection.
The thing I didn’t see, which probably does more than anything to back up my argument (again, not a 100 percent rule!) is that no one came to the defense of the board members I called, “sleepy, corpulent and wrinkled folks.” Folks, that is because they have the power, they are not reading, and it’s going to be a long time before they care.
Here’s a brief supplement I posted at GovLoop:
I write a personal blog with the goal of advancing Government 2.0 ideals and adoption. A post this week, “Nickname? Lose It,” generated a lot of discussion.
The GovLoop audience is much broader than the folks my blog reaches on its own. And if you haven’t checked out the blog, I would love to know what you think.
For example, letters to the editor are already a mixed bag. But Wired mag prints letters from folks like, “Alby,” “Technophile,” “RascalNikov,” PerfuseGuy,” and “ChipsMcSlagle.” Maybe that last one is a real name, but I doubt it.
I posit that to advance Gov 2.0, we have to be willing to approach government (or the Chamber of Commerce, for that matter) with at least some acceptance of its terms. And I doubt “PerfuseGuy” is taken seriously by the millions who’ve been in power for generations.
[…] and as I @cdorobek reiterate, we make each other better. Whether your Twitter handle is your real name or a nickname, it doesn’t matter, what matters…is getting started and getting […]
There was the case of the Air Force non-com who sent an email to someone from his personal email account which was something like “boylover@.com” and got court-martialled for it.
Nicknames are only part of it. Remember when Alix Rosenthal ran for D8 Supervisor? The mods had a field day with a pic of her in a wonder-womanesque burning man costume. Then there’s Michael Phelps. I don’t know if he was aware that a picture of him inhaling a bowl of something not made by Kellogg’s was being taken, and this picture was actually brought to the world’s attention by old school media, but you should avoid having pictures taken of you when you’re using illegal drugs, having sex (or even being naked – remember the girl from High School Musical?), or just lying passed out in a gutter in a pool of your own vomit and/or urine.
Just never have any fun, and you’ll be fine.
[…] Nickname? Lose it. This most-commented post gives my brief thoughts on how Web nicknames can be a barrier to […]
Just picked up on this debate. With a name like James Brown (my real name), you are lucky to be able to register any site, email, twitter or anything else with either ‘James’ or ‘Brown’ let alone JamesBrown. Thus, TheOtherJamesBrown which was as near as I could get. Hopefully a balance between my real name and an online nickname.
However, it does have its advantages – people rarely forget my name!
Darn straight – Dave “Druid” Smith had the same point. And the point I am trying to make is clear and culturally transferable names. Yours is pretty cool.
This discussion has made me break my rule for tonight (15 minutes on report, 2 minutes on Twitter.) I agree with you Adriel, and worry that my nickname may generate ill will, at the Chamber of Commerce mainly, as I try to bring social media to bear on local problems in a small southern town.
But, for the people I am reaching out to (parents and human service workers), social media is about Facebook and playing Bejeweled Blitz and having fun. I don’t want to lose that aspect of the online social experience while I’m guiding them to see that it can be used to meet local needs and improve lives.
I thought this post was going to be about how ‘real name responsibility breeds a healthy respect for privacy’, not how a dumb nickname or hotmail address looks to the powerful and the hiring. I believe that using your real name and being transparent does shift you to a mindset of setting boundaries in online communication, which also reduces conflicts that occur when people explore a medium that has few social context cues.
I’m gathering my ammunition to address anticipated concerns and obstacles to using social media for local good doing. So, I believe that using your real name and being transparent is great advice, and I will recommend it to my folks as we move forward.
Take care,
Kim Keith
Blueinred
[…] challenges of mainstreaming Web 2.0 culture. That would be the use of anonymous comments and nicknames. The discussions on both issues have been great, and have helped convince me that my position on […]
Wow, I come to this with so many perspectives. To list a few:
– I have actually SERVED on a college board of trustees, although I’m only lightly creased, not really wrinkled; not the least bit corpulent; and sleepy only because I stay up late doing volunteer stuff (I overcompensate with caffeine).
– I play an active role in my local Chamber of Commerce and in local politics.
– I was chatting with people in the Dark Ages of IRC and a 300-baud modem, and nicknames were definitely the social norm. Those chats didn’t live anywhere permanently, waiting for someone to find and embarrass me decades later with my youthful opinionated self.
– I majored in linguistics and English, and I take the meaning and power of words seriously–both their literal meanings, and the roles they play in establishing identity and social connections.
– I just had the experience of dealing with a database of people who were permitting a campaign to use their names in support of a particular position. I couldn’t help but notice–and react to–the email addresses listed. I noted this very point, that some were straightforward and pretty mainstream, while others gave me a definite impression about the person.
I get where Adriel’s coming from, and I don’t think he’s way off base. He’s talking about first impressions–the most basic and most powerful interaction you have with someone.
I’m in plenty of meetings with “the suits”–heck, I suppose I AM a suit, in a way. I work for an institution, I have a title and business cards, I read resumes and decide whether to call someone in for an interview. I’m reasonably open-minded (and have teenagers), but I’m still shaped by my generation.
Focusing specifically on the Gov 2.0 implications:
These suits are the people who serve on powerful boards, back this candidate over that one, do (or don’t) support a legislative funding request, approve (or don’t) the web access policy for citizens or students, say yes or no to adding a blog/comment space to the usual community hearing system that’s going to determine whether a freeway cuts through your neighborhood.
Who are they going to take seriously? Right now, today, if they’re reading a summary of comments from that blog then the person managing it has these choices:
1) Keep all the handles there. Let them look at comments posted by ULuvMyBooty and BoyWhoLovesSkanks. See how seriously they take them. See whose input gets dismissed or minimized because the fact is, BoyWhoLovesSkanks is mostly not running the shop.
2) Strip all the identifiers. All comments are thus equal and considered only for their content.
3) Require everyone to use a “real” name to submit comments (but how would you ever verify that?). That requires citizens to own their comments, and cuts down on the anonymous snipers.
These are all editorial (public engagement) decisions, in a sense, and each has pros/cons. These are also decisions about how a government agency is going to interact with citizens.
Conversely, it’s a choice by citizens about how they will–or won’t–interact with government.
The citizen who says “my nickname IS me, and I won’t comment unless I can do so as BoyWhoLovesSkanks” can make that choice.
That’s probably not going to move the needle on how government operates, and how it relates to people who agree with him.
Fascinating topic, and well worth discussing thoughtfully.
@BarbChamberlain
[…] to change my Twitter account to my real name. Adriel Hampton first brought this up in the post Nickname? Lose It. Because I can be opinionated and grouchy at times, I think it’s best to do it as myself. […]
I use my name as my online handle because it’s globally unique. Otherwise I’d either choose to use a handle – or consider changing my legal name 🙂
I don’t do it because I am concerned about how people would think of me. It’s because my name is my brand, or my personal identifier.
When people what to know who I am, what I do or what I think, they can find out by seeking me using the same moniker across websites.
This is the same reason others use nicknames – to be readily identified online in a unique manner.
For those with common names sometimes the best alternative is to use a nickname of some type, for others sometimes their nickname is a better expression of who they are than the name their parents gave them.
If this is perceived poorly by those in high office, than one can only be concerned about how people with real, yet unusual, names get treated. Are there flocks of senior public servants laughing over people with unusual names such as ‘Gaylord’ and ‘Safari’, or with names with double meanings across languages, like ‘Fucher’?
I hope not – and would hope that appropriate measures are in place to minimise discrimination by nickname, email address or similar personal identifiers.
Discrimination on the basis of a chosen name is illegal in many western jurisdictions and there should be no distinction between a ‘normal’ legal name, a ‘funny’ legal name or a ‘normal’ or ‘funny’ self-chosen online nickname.
John Cougar
Johnny Cougar
John Cougar Mellencamp
John Mellencamp
Prince
O+>
The Artist Formerly Known as Prince
Prince
Blame bashley for my musical trip. Each of the above performers changed their names several times, starting at the top and ending at the bottom. Maybe they’ll change again. Maybe you will. Maybe I will. Maybe the country will. Who knows. Who cares. I don’t.
Like others wrote, names are names and nicknames or handles or call them what you will are nothing new to the internet. Why start a revolution now?
@Mark Drapeau: you hit it on the nose, buddy.
@adriel: Wired published my one word response (“bollocks”) to an article that an author wrote about how it’s a waste of time to start a blog. what does that have to do with appearing legitimate in gov2.0? i don’t even know what gov2.0 is but i suppose it’s something more participatory where citizens actually establish a 1:1 dialogue with government. if i write to the government then i’d use my real name and i would hope most people would do the same if it they were doing more than ranting. but there’s nothing wrong with having an online alias. if you’re a private investigator then you should know how easy it is to find out tons of information about someone online. remember that thing we americans value called privacy? you’d have to be a total idiot to attach your name to everything you write online and to have everything you write online accessible to everyone else. i am not a journalist branding is not important to me. perhaps i missed the point of your post…i stumbled upon it while playing with Bing. just sending you my thoughts. don’t stop blogging despite what Wired says.
@steve raddick
what does someone’s personal “handle” have to do with their understanding of branding? it’s called private use. if they have a personal/private nickname that’s as silly as “uluvmywhatever” then they’re weird. but it doesn’t say anything about their understanding about branding or social media. it says a lot about you as someone who judges someone because you know a little bit too much about their personal life. that’s why people don’t put their real names on everything in the first place.