Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Anonymous Monk

by PeterPeiGuo (Hermit)
on Jan 16, 2011 at 00:59 UTC ( #882486=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Anonymous Monk?

Just like everything else, when some like it, some others simply don't. The bottom line is that, this is not a big deal any way and is fine either way.

Peter (Guo) Pei

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Anonymous Monk
by Jim (Curate) on Jan 16, 2011 at 01:22 UTC

    I certainly accept the fundamental principle that different people like different things. That's not the gist of my inquiry. My question is an earnest and specific one about the rationale of the administrators of PerlMonks: Why did they implement a generic user named Anonymous Monk?

    I'm asking the question because it seems incongruous to me. OK, I guess this means I'm also expressing a point of view, but I'm nonetheless asking a sincere question for the genuine purpose of knowing the answer. I'm not trolling.

      My question is an earnest and specific one about the rationale of the administrators of PerlMonks: Why did they implement a generic user named Anonymous Monk?

      The original site design took a lot of code ideas and community guidance from Slashdot. Anonymous Monk is very similar to Slashdot's Anonymous Coward.

        Wow! Thank you, chromatic, for this important historical fact. It lends a lot both to understanding PerlMonks' Anonymous Monk user and to this discussion and debate.

        Googling Anonymous Coward leads one to the Wikipedia article Anonymous Coward and to other informative resources.

        (I'm reading and enjoying your book. Thanks for it!)

Re^2: Anonymous Monk
by flexvault (Monsignor) on Jan 16, 2011 at 16:04 UTC

    Why does PerlMonks permit multiple visitors with the same username, Anonymous Monk, to post here? What purpose does a sophisticated voting system serve when so many "members of the community" post messages to PerlMonks using the same anonymous username?

    To me, total anonymity—or, more precisely, shared, ambiguous and amorphous identity—doesn't jibe with the monastic ethos . . .


    I agree with Jim and ELISHEV, and I think this question is more relevant than what others think!

    Why not let all registered monks vote on the question?

    But only 1 vote from 1 registered monk, or to give the current hierarchy their just due, the monks level is counted as number of votes. ( So a Pope's vote counts as 28, etc. ). But only 1 positive/negative post per monk should count (first/last?)

    Let me just say the tone of many posts are changed by comments from the 'Anonymous Monk'.

    I have learned a lot from registered monks, since they usually spend the time/energy to make sure what they say/code works and is relevant to the topic. I can't say that about the 'Anonymous Monk' comment.

    Thank you

    "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://882486]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (6)
As of 2021-05-06 08:01 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Perl 7 will be out ...





    Results (70 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?