CC licensing and open access


Here’s an example of how lim­it­a­tions through CC licences can change what you do with a paper.

I’m look­ing at an image. At first I thought to use it in a blog post about organic bat­ter­ies. I thought I could do that because the paper is open access, but the licence of the paper is BY-NC-ND. Taking an image from the paper and blog­ging about it is pretty much mak­ing a D of it. The ND for­bids deriv­at­ives, even if the point of the deriv­at­ive is to say “Hey go look at this paper!” The page for the image itself has no CC licence inform­a­tion, so it looks like the copy­right in the footer applies.

I can see why there’s the NC clause. This has its own prob­lems, like mak­ing it unus­able for things like Wikipedia, but I can see sense in it. But ND seems an odd clause for sci­entific papers. Surely (properly-credited) deriv­at­ive works are a good thing for sci­ent­ists? I can see there’s a reason for ND in artistic pro­tec­tion, but sci­ence papers gen­er­ally aren’t works of art. Are there good reas­ons for Nature to have the ND clause?

I’ve trimmed the image thumb­nail and descrip­tion from the link because they would be deriv­at­ive from ori­ginal paper.

#blog   #pub­lish­ing   #aca­demia  

Embedded Link

Lithium stor­age mech­an­isms in pur­purin based organic lith­ium ion bat­tery elec­trodes : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group

Google+: View post on Google+

STFC and the fall of the Roman Empire


One puzzle about the Roman Empire is that while they had tech­no­logy they often didn’t use it to its full poten­tial. For instance, take the steam engine. Hero of Alexandria had demon­strated a basic steam engine, the aeolio­pile, around two thou­sand years ago. A little work would have given them the rail­way and in later years Rome really needed a railway.

The aeol­i­pile in action

One use is the obvi­ous applic­a­tion to the mil­it­ary and com­mu­nic­a­tions. With a rail net­work Rome could have moved legions to trou­bles­pots quickly and reacted to incur­sions much faster. If you want a simple peer into the future then you could argue that with rail­ways the Roman Empire may never have fallen. In fact the future prob­ably would have been much more rad­ic­ally different.

A rail­way would have made much more of the Empire eco­nom­ic­ally access­ible. Rome was fed by corn from Egypt because Egypt was much more eco­nom­ic­ally access­ible than the Italian hin­ter­land. Sailing from Egypt didn’t con­sume corn in the way that an ox-pulled cart would. The sea, and to a lesser extent the rivers, were the cargo high­ways of the ancient world. A rail­way could have added much more ter­rit­ory into an empire-wide mar­ket. To be hon­est I couldn’t start to work what the effects of a pancon­tin­ental single eco­nomy would have had on Rome and Europe over two thou­sand years. Its likely that even within a cen­tury or so Rome would have been eco­nom­ic­ally and tech­no­lo­gic­ally more advanced by any meas­ure you’d care to use. In the longer term it’s harder to tell. Socially, bet­ter com­mu­nic­a­tions might have helped the devel­op­ment of demo­cracy, but equally it could aid a repress­ive régime. The arrival of ori­ental cults would have been a fur­ther con­found­ing factor. Still, given the bene­fits for increased wealth, why didn’t rail­ways happen?

There’s plenty of reas­ons, but one major prob­lem is polit­ical. Roman polit­ics worked through a cli­ent and pat­ron sys­tem. A sen­ator would be a cli­ent and provide oppor­tun­it­ies to lesser sen­at­ors and equites (knights). These would in turn be pat­rons to cli­ents fur­ther down the food chain and so on. One top sen­ator there­fore had a lot of influ­ence. This mattered when passing laws because influ­ence can be turned into votes. Now, if you have a mine where you replace a lot of the work­ers with a mech­an­ical pump or track, what hap­pens to that influ­ence? All those work­ers now become cli­ents of other sen­at­ors and you’re in a polit­ic­ally weaker pos­i­tion. Being rich and weak then makes you a tar­get for any­one with a passing fancy to your wealth.

Investment in tech­no­logy would prob­ably have been a long-term suc­cess story and changed life in unima­gin­able ways. The polit­ical sys­tem how­ever was geared to work against change.

In the past week the STFC slashed budgets for a stag­ger­ing num­ber of pro­jects in Astronomy, Nuclear Physics and Particle Physics. There was a £80,000,000 hole in the fin­ances that was due to mis­man­ag­ment rather than the cur­rent nation­wide crisis. Interestingly the mis­man­aged RBS has a bonus pot of around £1,500,000,000, and at the same time is tak­ing a fur­ther gov­ern­ment bail­out to pay for this suc­cess. There’s also an event lined up for 2012 in London much of which is designed to leave min­imal impact cost­ing £12,000,000,000.

It’s hard to pre­dict what kind of future is being lost by the STFC. At Leicester there’s an X-ray lens based on lob­ster eyes wait­ing for a launch. The prob­lem with X-rays is that you can’t really use a lens like you would for the vis­ible spec­trum, but you can bend it by hav­ing glance off mir­rors. That’s what this lens does to bring and image to a focus, and it’s going to have a big impact on X-ray astro­nomy which is the part of the EM spec­trum you need to be look­ing at for high energy events. What is par­tic­u­larly nifty about it is that it’s quite small. Usually when you thing of power­ful tele­scopes you think of some­thing massive. This is small enough to be able to be used in hos­pit­als, so it turns out a prob­lem in observing black holes will have a med­ical applic­a­tion. On top of that it could also help build smal­ler tran­sist­ors for cir­cuit boards.

It’s not pos­sible to say what the pro­jects axed by the STFC could have revealed. If someone could say what they would achieve then no one would need to actu­ally do them. The fact that they are lost and the STFC is present­ing this as a Good Thing shows a ter­ri­fy­ing lack of ima­gin­a­tion. What is needed is a gov­ern­ment with long term vis­ion, but the UK’s cur­rent gov­ern­ment struggles with see­ing more than a year in advance. It’s not really will­ing to make an invest­ment that someone else might bene­fit from, even if it’s the best course for the nation.

On December the 22nd, the gov­ern­ment announced £398m cuts from a HE budget. They made a big show of main­tain­ing a £109m rise in research fund­ing to off­set the near £400m cuts. What seems to have slipped their minds is that the research budget is only for 2010-11 and the recent pre-budget report tar­gets HE for £600m of cuts, with the research cuts being the prime source of money (p. 110 [PDF]).

I think this shows why History of Science isn’t just about the sci­ence, you need a social dimen­sion too. A his­tor­ian look­ing back at this era, look­ing only at the pro­jects would go mad. We’ve paid to build the Gemini tele­scopes, but we won’t get to use them because we’ve cut our sub­scrip­tion. We paid to build ALICE at the Large Hadron Collider, which hasn’t been run­ning that long. According to the STFC now the LHC has been switched on and there’s the pos­sib­il­ity of res­ults, it’s time to with­draw from ALICE so we “can do some­thing new.” The decisions only make sense* if you under­stand that politi­cians in the UK value incom­pet­ent bankers more than they value excel­lent research.

* The wrong word I know, but I can’t think of a bet­ter one at the moment.

REF & ʇɔɐdɯı lɐɹnʇlnɔ

A photo of Atlantis. It has more Impact if you can't see it.

A photo of Atlantis. It has more Impact if you can’t see it.

At the start I should make clear that I am not an expert and I can’t say for cer­tain exactly what Impact is. The reason I’m writ­ing this is that sadly no one else can say what Impact is either, though HEFCE has a go. That’s a prob­lem, because it’s going to play a big part in the assess­ment of uni­ver­sit­ies in 2012.

Periodically uni­ver­sit­ies in the UK are assessed. In the past this has been done by the RAE, the Research Assessment Exercise. The RAE came in for a lot of cri­ti­cism. The rules would change and often decisions about the the assess­ment would work were not taken till after the uni­ver­sit­ies had made their sub­mis­sions. Many people argued that the RAE was expens­ive and unre­li­able. What’s happened is that the gov­ern­ment have listened to the cri­ti­cisms and replaced the RAE with the REF, the Research Excellence Framework. This dif­fers from the RAE in some respects, but it’s not exactly clear how, keep­ing the ele­ment of uncer­tainty. On the plus side some fea­tures like the expense have been retained. The big mys­tery though is Impact.

How do you meas­ure how good a department’s aca­demic research is? You could exam­ine that research by look­ing at a sample of aca­demic papers, and that’s 65% of the frame­work. But 25% of the assess­ment will be on Impact in non-academic contexts.

The obvi­ous example is Economic Impact, and this is where some people have an idea of what Impact is. You might research mag­netic mono­poles, but if you find one, what’s the point? If how­ever you pat­ent the pro­cess for mak­ing them and exploit it, you can show this research has a clear eco­nomic pay­back. The catch is your depart­ment has to exploit it. You can’t claim there’s an eco­nomic if a hun­dred com­pan­ies inde­pend­ently exploit it, because it’s their work as innov­at­ors that’s giv­ing your research eco­nomic impact rather than your own efforts. You can’t claim for other people’s work, which sounds sens­ible. You might have spot­ted a flaw in that, but it gets better.

Some fields clearly have no obvi­ous eco­nomic impact. You can’t really pack­age num­ber the­ory as a product and a new inter­pret­a­tion of an Aristophanes’ play which sheds light on Athenian demo­cracy in the Peloponnesian War is going to be hard to sell as an indus­trial pro­cess. So to help his­tor­i­ans and archae­olo­gists there’s Cultural Impact. As far as I, or any­one else, can tell Cultural Impact is gen­er­ated the same way as Economic Impact. So let’s take the Antikythera Mechanism as an example and see what Cultural Impact it’s had.

Work on the mech­an­ism has fea­tured in every major qual­ity news­pa­per around the planet. That adds up to a total Cultural Impact of zero. That’s because it’s the news­pa­pers that exploited that to make the stor­ies, not the research team. I don’t know how much vis­its to the National Museum in Athens have gone up by, but it’s safe to bet there’s more vis­it­ors to see the mech­an­ism. Luckily I don’t have to know the fig­ures, because the Cultural Impact would be zero. It would be the National Museum that’s put­ting on the dis­play, not the research group. The research has clearly put the mech­an­ism much more in the pub­lic con­scious­ness that it has been. But we don’t need to work out a way of meas­ur­ing that but we don’t need to any­way because the Cultural Impact of that is zero. A pop­u­lar book might be an example of Impact. They’re work­ing on one, and there’s another already out, Decoding the Heavens. This book, which exists as a dir­ect con­sequence of their work, won’t count for Impact because Jo Marchant wrote it.

You may need to turn off your irony meter. I needed an example of excel­lent research that every­one knows about [PDF]. There’s hardly any­thing bet­ter known in recent archae­olo­gical research than the Antikythera Mechanism. That’s why I used it, but — because it’s a thing I’m doing — they can’t claim Cultural Impact for it. If I’d used my own bit of research that no one had heard of then I could use this blog post as an example of cul­tural impact, because clearly the only impact it would have had would be trace­able to me.

This pain­fully illus­trates why the meas­ure­ment of Cultural Impact is broken. Defining what Culture is is a major pro­ject. One com­mon factor though is that cul­ture is shared. I don’t know of any­one arguing for a cul­ture of One. So any­thing which genu­inely has cul­tural impact as you or I would under­stand it must have escaped from its cre­ator. If you want a new word in the Oxford English Dictionary one of the basic rules is that it must be in use bey­ond its ori­ginal source. If you want your work to have cul­tural impact it must be used in ways that you had no influ­ence over. This is the exact oppos­ite to the REF’s notion of Impact.

It’s not just a non­sense idea. If we take it ser­i­ously then it act­ively pro­motes depart­ments who take an ivory bunker men­tal­ity. Let’s ima­gine I find King Arthur’s Crown. If I want to score Impact I keep the details of the research to myself for my own pop­u­lar book. I make sure all the pho­tos of the object taken are assigned copy­right to me, so no one shows the crown without my per­mis­sion. If I put the crown on a table with no explan­a­tion for an audi­ence of 100 people that’s more Impactful than if I let the British Museum put on an extra­vag­anza put­ting the crown in its medi­eval con­text. This is all about lock­ing down IP so that I own it, and the pub­lic who likely fun­ded the research don’t.

Sadly this applies to other forms of Impact. Take the work at CERN. That’s pro­duced the World Wide Web. What is the Economic Impact of the web, which handles mil­lions of pounds of trade across the world every hour? Zero. Because other people are exploit­ing it. If it were a licenced tech­no­logy that only major com­pan­ies could afford then it would have a massive impact even if most people couldn’t use it.

It seems that there’s two options. One is that the REF’s notion of Impact is borked and totally unsuit­able for the task it’s given. The other is that Impact is fine and genu­inely trans­form­at­ive research which every­one can use in their own way is a Bad Thing that we should not encour­age. If this is about mak­ing sup­port­ing excel­lent research that has genu­ine cul­tural impact, then the cur­rent Impact idea would be exactly the wrong way to go about it.

Bookmarks for 16th of November through to 18th of November


These are my links for 16th of November through 18th of November:

  • The Academic Journal Racket « In the Dark
    Telescoper explains how aca­demic pub­lish­ing works. The only thing that would improbe the post would be the theme from ‘The Naked Gun’ in the background.
  • A Case in Antiquities for ‘Finders Keepers’ — NYTimes​.com
    You can make argu­ments in favour of repat­ri­ation of antiquit­ies. You can make argue­ments against. Being on either side doesn’t make you inher­ently fool­ish. But when you write that the British Army took the Rosetta Stone from the French and “returned it to the British Museum” then some­thing has gone wrong. It’s prob­ably a case of moment­ary brain­fade rather than idiocy, but it mat­ters because the whole ques­tion of own­er­ship of the Rosetta Stone is about where it right­fully belongs. Using the word ‘returned’ builds in the assump­tion that all antiquit­ies are inher­ently British.
  • Notes & Queries; Sledges — Theoretical Structural Archaeology
    Geoff Carter con­cluded he didn’t have evid­ence for a stag­ger­ingly early cart shed in Poland. Could it have been a used to house a sledge? I’ve just real­ised I know abso­lutely noth­ing at all about the his­tory of sleds and sledges. Not only that, but I can’t recall much atten­tion being called to them in early pre­his­toric archae­ology other than when people want to talk about mov­ing mega­liths to Stonehenge. Yet Martha Murphy (guest blog­ging) shows there’s plenty of ques­tions to ask about neo­lithic transport.
  • British bank turns to treas­ure hunt­ing via @johnabartram
    Avast me hearties! Robert Fraser & Partners be scourin’ the high seas in search of booty. They be fundin’ Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. ter search the Caribbean fer Spanish gold. Arrr!
  • CRM Problem in Cadboro Bay « Northwest Coast Archaeology
    More on the prob­lems of pre­serving her­it­age in BC. Ancient buri­als have been scooped out of the ground, <em>after</em> an archae­olo­gical assessment.

Time to ditch the press release?

Fixing the newspapers. Photo (cc) Evil Erin.

Fixing the news­pa­pers. Photo (cc) Evil Erin.

At the National Astronomy Meeting in 2004 I listened to Dr David Whitehouse, who I think was then Science Editor at the BBC, give advice about feed­ing sci­ence stor­ies to the media. He made quite a few points, but there are three I remember.

  1. Don’t push a story on the grounds it’s the biggest / old­est / shi­ni­est / crum­bli­est etc. thing found. It’s a cliché and it’s dull.
  2. Don’t waste people’s time with the for­mula for ‘x’ where x is any­thing which really shouldn’t have a formula.
  3. Don’t use press releases.

At the time he really didn’t con­vince me. The biggest, old­est and so on remains a staple news item. Likewise Cliff Arnall has shown you can make money from non­sense for­mu­lae. What really under­mined him though was the news­room run by the RAS at the meet­ing. I could wander in there and see the press releases. The next day I could see the same stor­ies, often with little edit­ing, in the national press. If he were to give the same talk today he might find it even harder. I can go to Eurekalert and pick up a sen­tence from any press release. If I paste it into Google I will find masses of news web­sites repeat­ing the press release near verbatim.

Surely this proves pub­li­city is about get­ting your press release into the right press release mill? I might have a news story by the end of the year and so I’ve thought about what I want to achieve with pub­li­city. I’m job hunt­ing. Press cov­er­age could be really help­ful to intro­duce me and my work to depart­ments. That’s why I’m more inter­ested in qual­ity rather than quant­ity and that’s why I think David Whitehouse could be right.

The reason I was scep­tical is because of an adversarial model of researcher-journalist rela­tions. Basically this is down to two complaints.

  1. Journalists regur­git­ate press releases without any crit­ical thought.
  2. Journalists don’t regur­git­ate my press releases without any crit­ical thought.

Clearly that proves that any prob­lems in sci­ence journ­al­ism are the fault of journ­al­ists rather than my work being unnews­worthy. You can’t argue with logic like that unless you’re very drunk.

If you see journ­al­ists as a bar­rier between you and the pub­lic then bypassing them makes sense. The tar­get becomes get­ting the press release as unmangled as pos­sible into the public’s hands. This kind of think­ing is the basis behind Futurity. The journ­al­ists are a resource val­ued as far as they can repro­duce the release you’ve given them. Presumably there’s a corol­lary to this rela­tion­ship from the journ­al­ists’ side where sci­ent­ists are val­ued as far as fit­ting a mar­ket­ing niche.

David Whitehouse argued that what journ­al­ists really want is an exclus­ive. Sticking a press release out means that it’s low pri­or­ity because every­one will be able to cover the story. It wasn’t the best sales pitch because what I heard at the time was “If you put out a press release then lots of people will cover it, but an exclus­ive means only one per­son cov­ers it.” If you’re in the adversarial model then the choice between press release and talk­ing to just one journ­al­ist, who may decide not to run your story, is a no-brainer.

Now I’ve changed my mind.

My work is inter­dis­cip­lin­ary. Journals, gen­er­ally, aren’t. That means if I pub­lish my work in one journal then it’ll be missed by a lot of the poten­tial audi­ence because research­ers tend to read journ­als in their own dis­cip­line and only a few out­side it. What I need is to pub­li­cise the work so that research­ers out­side the field of whatever journal I pub­lish in will be aware of the paper. So if I pub­lish in The Journal of Obscure Astronomy then I’ll have to find some way to alert clas­si­cists and archae­olo­gists to the paper, else they’ll never read it — even if JOA is open access or the paper’s on arXiv.

Having a press release appear on a thou­sand web­sites is great for the ego, but it’s point­less if they’re a thou­sand web­sites that no-one with an interest in clas­sics or archae­ology reads. If I wanted to announce work to a small num­ber of intel­li­gent people I’d post it here. What I need is qual­ity of cov­er­age rather than quant­ity. In fact as I wrote that last sen­tence it struck me how irrel­ev­ant quant­ity of cov­er­age is.

It sounds good. It’s some­thing people can meas­ure in column inches but real­ist­ic­ally 10 column inches in two papers is not twice as good as 5 inches in one paper. Sharing links is easy. If the story appeared in just one major site, the link would be passed around. Appearing in more papers aids dis­cov­ery, but the stor­ies will all be say­ing sim­ilar things about the work. I was told that the recent pub­lic­a­tions on the Antikythera Mechanism appeared as news stor­ies in all the qual­ity papers in the world. But I bet if I were to sit down and read them all I’d find very little new inform­a­tion after the first three stor­ies. Certainly appear­ing in more qual­ity press is a bet­ter res­ult, but the size of the read­er­ship for the major news sites is such that appear­ing in just one major site will still deliver more reach than a hun­dred minor sites.

It also looks like a prac­tical way to aid good journ­al­ism. I’m will­ing to bet that any sci­ence journ­al­ist with even a bit of tal­ent would like to see the end of press releases being called news. If we rein­force the idea that a recycled press release is news then there’s no call for spe­cial­ist sci­ence journ­al­ists because any­one can recycle a press release.

That’s why I’ve decided the next time I have a story — if the journal doesn’t have its own media policy — I’m going to try pitch­ing it dir­ect to a journ­al­ist rather than via a press release. I’m not com­fort­able with this. Every day you can see press releases work­ing in the papers and if web­sites recycle mater­ial big num­bers are attract­ive. But maybe that’s a safety net? If news sites really are put­ting up press releases as news then even if attempts to pitch the exclus­ive fail you can always fall back on a press release. That’s another reason press releases shouldn’t be the first option.

Fund your project via the web


Money Shot. Photo (cc) Jessica Smith

I saw an inter­est­ing fund­ing oppor­tun­ity on ReadWriteWeb and, because it’s only open to Americans, I thought to share it. Kickstarter​.com looks like it could be use­ful for fund­ing small-scale aca­demic projects.

The idea is simple enough, you look through the vari­ous pro­jects on the web­site and if you see an idea you like you pledge some money to it. If a pro­ject raises all the money it needs in pledges before a dead­line then credit cards are charges and the pro­ject gets the money. If the pro­ject doesn’t get enough money the pledges lapse. The pro­ject gets noth­ing, but this also means there’s no oblig­a­tion to ful­fil tar­gets on a cut budget.

You’re prob­ably not going to fund a large or even medium-sized Hadron col­lider with this, but for sub-$5000 pro­jects, it might be a pos­sib­il­ity. It strikes me as a good match for some archae­olo­gical work. The dif­fi­culty is work­ing out what you can give back. Ideally you’d want to pub­lish all your find­ings, so it’s hard to jus­tify keep­ing back use­ful inform­a­tion for back­ers only. You could give pri­or­ity to back­ers like subscriber-only updates live from the field. The dif­fi­culty I fore­see with this is that it then means on top of work, you’ll want to spend a couple of hours each day pro­du­cing the updates. If you’re some­where where updat­ing from the field is dif­fi­cult, like the Sahara, then it’s harder to work this model. Tweets from a private account won’t be much of bonus if the back­ers can’t inter­act with the fieldworker(s).

On the other hand if you have a known budget with a known num­ber of back­ers then you can budget to include pro­du­cing premium con­tent. So say­ing that any­one that pledges over $X get a limited-edition hard­back edi­tion of the report is feas­ible – or at least it would be if Lulu’s cost cal­cu­lator had been work­ing when I wrote this. On the down­side $20 from a $50 pledge would be lost pro­du­cing the con­tent, but that’s still a net gain of $30. Giving some­thing back to the back­ers seems pretty essen­tial as they’ll be the obvi­ous mar­ket for your next project.

At the moment the site is lim­ited to American pro­jects because the sys­tem works through Amazon pay­ments. If it’s suc­cess­ful then it’ll either expand or else a big­ger start-up with open a globally-accessible com­pet­itor. Either way if the bal­ance between premium con­tent and open-access can be found, then it could be an altern­at­ive source of fund­ing, for pro­jects with pop­u­lar appeal.

I’m now giv­ing ser­i­ous thought to fund­ing future pro­jects of my own. Because I tend to stick to basic sur­vey, my own costs tend to be travel and car hire. One idea I’m con­sid­er­ing is com­mer­cial spon­sor­ship. If a non­sense sur­vey can earn someone £500 for simply attach­ing a name, then pro­du­cing a news-worthy story should be worth a few thou­sand to the right spon­sor. That means prov­ing news-worthiness. I’ll be look­ing hard at pub­li­city for my next paper as I got it badly wrong last time. If I learn from that I’ll take a rad­ic­ally dif­fer­ent approach.

Blogging and Honesty


A ramble rather than a rant.

How do you put your blog posts together? Photo after erix!

There’s been a spate of ‘Why Blog?’ posts in the Biblioblogosphere. They hap­pen every so often amongst blog­gers. Sometimes they’re insight­ful and some­times they’re navel gaz­ing. Thankfully the dis­cus­sion leans towards the former here. Charles Ellwood Jones has put up a round up of posts at the Ancient World Bloggers Group.

The entries that par­tic­u­larly caught my eye were on hon­esty in blog­ging. Jim West kicked that strand off, you should read the whole thing, but key pararaphs are:

In sum, do we refrain from blog­ging what we really think about this or that or the other because we are unsure of ourselves, or because we are fear­ful of the reac­tion or– and worst of all– because we are afraid we might not be called to serve at Harvard or Yale if someone there reads what we cheekily say?

I find myself, at the end of the day, con­stantly amazed at the unwill­ing­ness of some to be them­selves. I take this as noth­ing but hypo­crisy. Hide your­self, don’t say what you think, play the hypo­crite, and someone may hire you or pub­lish you. As though being hired or pub­lished were more import­ant than hon­esty. Which I sup­pose, for some, they are.

Roland Boer is in agree­ment. There were a couple of other responses. Mark Goodacre com­men­ted on the split between his blogs into broadly pro­fes­sional and per­sonal, because some one might want to read the one and not the other. In a dif­fer­ent dir­ec­tion Missives from Marx argues that in some cases anonym­ity is neces­sary for hon­esty. I think that MM makes a mis­take. Missives from Marx is not an anonym­ous blog. It’s a pseudomym­ous blog and there’s the con­stant pos­sib­il­ity that someone will con­nect the pseud­onym to the per­son. To be hon­est you may struggle to find people openly blog­ging “Yes! I am a hypo­crite, AND PROUD OF IT!“
Continue read­ing