If you're going to blog, it should not be anonymous. Otherwise, what's the point? If you're not courageous enough to put your name out there with your ideas, then why should I take the time to read them? (Even though, I confess, I do love reading the AL's rants, and I also enjoyed visiting her Flea Libary.)
What's admirable about what the AL is that she's critiquing our profession in a very funny and dead-on manner. What isn't right, though, is that she's carefully hiding her identity while doing it. This all speaks to Steven Bell's post on ACRLog (which I can't find but will link when I do) about our profession's inability to have critical discourse about ideas and initiatives. Isn't this what lies at the heart of academia--taking advantage of the freedom to analyze, criticize, and participate in the process of refining and refocusing interesting ideas?
Feel free to fight with me about this. (Anonymously, or otherwise!)
Comments (1)
I disagree. I blog semi-anonymously (some do know who I am) and disguise where I work because sometimes I want to say things that might not sit entirely well with The Powers That Be, or because I want to divulge without breaching my own privacy comfort levels.
People have gotten fired for blogging and have lost jobs (or not been hired) because of what they said in a work-related blog. Given the nature of AL's posts, I can understand the reluctance to go public.
Posted by Lazygal | September 6, 2007 9:57 PM
Posted on September 6, 2007 21:57