This may seem at odds with a URL posted earlier, but with the greatest respect (and sympathy) for those who have already entered into this thread, I humbly suggest that discussing any person's character on AIR-L is: 1. Inappropriate. AIR-L is intended to further research and while it frequently becomes a more friendly community, none of us would want our personal character adjudicated in such a public setting. So, to second Peter's comment, I think we should quit it. 2. Ineffective. Really, the question of whether to befriend someone or "friend" someone is more effectively handled by talking to people you trust and, for people who write in public, reading what they have said. Why would you trust 2,000 relative strangers' opinions on another stranger? If we want to talk about something a person has written, an argument they have made, or even a project they have undertaken, that's another kettle of fish, and this would be a great topic. 3. Boring. I don't really care, particularly, about the reputation of a single person. I know some do--that's why TMZ rakes in the bucks. I encourage someone to start a Reid Cornwell fan page on Facebook, or an "anti-fan" page if they prefer. I just don't think it is why people come to AIR-L. So, since the above is very much "do as I say, not as I do," I recommend the following tangents, which actually take those issues on without ever having to talk about any single person: 1. Has the nature of reputation changed? Do we now make friends in a different way? Most of the people I consider friends IRL I met either because I was introduced to them by people I trusted, or because we were forced to work together on something (school, work, sporting team, chain gang, same diff.). But now, I feel Helen's pain: If you are a friend of Henry's shouldn't you also be my friend? 2. Is whuffie a reasonable construct? Do we all, like public officials, now have "approval ratings"? Did we always, and now it is more explicit? 3. How, when anyone online can be a dog, do we determine if someone is a "mensch"? I know that many of you on this list have "alts," and nom de plumes (d'ordinateurs?). If you are like me, you are concerned that they keep their "good name," even if they happen to be fake. How do we determine if a person or an organization is "legitimate"? If it "matters"? When does the social construct of a public persona or organization become "real"? Where is the border between astroturf and grass roots--or is there any? (Obviously, this is a question Wikipedia struggles with.) Discuss. </threadjack> -- -- // // This email is // [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net //