TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
It's the lack of specifics that bothers me. I can see situations where
someone might have valuable information about an employer and not want
to be identified as the source. But in order to have value, information
has to be verifiable or come from a trusted source. With no name and no
specifics, all the post tells me is that there is at least one person
unhappy with that organization.
I disagree with the idea that a "real name" makes much difference. It is
extremely difficult to verify a name on email, and fairly easy to forge
someone else's name. What would give the message value to me (other than
specifics) would be it's place in a stream of well considered messages.
For example, if Joe Alias posts on a regular basis and the messages give
me the impression that whoever is behind them is a reasonable person,
and one of those messages talks about an unpleasant atmosphere at a
company (no specific acts or incidents, just an unpleasant situation) I
might give that message quite a bit more consideration than one posted
under an apparently real name I've never heard from.
>From: JIMCHEVAL -at- AOL -dot- COM [SMTP:JIMCHEVAL -at- AOL -dot- COM]
>In a message dated 97-05-12 15:20:49 EDT, mjwing -at- INGR -dot- COM (Wing, Michael J)
><< You can start by using your real name instead of an alias in your posts >>
>Plus, when we discuss sleazy agents or casting directors on my actor's list
>(we do so all the time), we name specific incidents or acts. The worst
>aspect of the original post was a complete lack of specifics overlaid with