When identifying real people in DU posts,

[MineralMan]

an excess of caution should always be used. Today, a person was identified as the shooter in the Ferguson, MO police shooting. The identification originated with an apparent Anonymous posting on Twitter. Anonymous, the loosely-structured organization, often posts stuff on Twitter. However, anyone can create a bogus Twitter account with the word Anonymous in it.

It turned out that the identification was incorrect, or at least completely unconfirmed. Twitter pulled the account, but the damage was done. All over the Internet that person's name was provided as the shooter cop in Ferguson. Now, it appears that name was incorrect, and wasn't the shooter at all.

Attempts have been made to change posts here on DU and elsewhere on the Internet to indicated that the posting of that name was done in error. But the damage is already done. In some cases, the error will be recognized. In other cases, however, the error will continue to spread, and this person's name, and even home address and other information will be broadcast on blogs, forums, and other places on the Internet.

This is wrong! Posting unconfirmed information that provides the name of someone should never be done. Without confirmation, the risk of incalculable damage to an innocent person are enormous. Once the incorrect information and name appear on the Internet, they will always exist on the Internet. The correction, however, may not be found by a casual Internet browser.

Please don't post people's names, based on some Twitter post, where that name is connected to some crime or horrendous event. Just don't do it. If you're wrong, which has occurred many times, you could be responsible for some sort of harm coming to an innocent person.

Before posting anyone's name connected with anything bad, try substituting you own name in what you are about to post. If you cannot confirm a name on more than one reliable source, simply do not post it. Anonymous is not a reliable source. Neither is some anonymous blog.

That's my advice. It's also part of DU's TOS rules.

[pipi_k]

1. That is why

I'm against the posting of ANY kind of personal identification, especially in high profile and inflammatory cases like this one.

Because there's always the possibility that it will be wrong.

And with so many nuts in the world, there is always the possibility that some completely innocent person and/or his family could suffer greatly.

So, in light of this development, I would say to the people who were cheering when they thought that "The pig who shot Michael Brown was identified..."

I hope you're happy now.


Too bad this isn't a perfect world, as I would like to see those who perpetuate false information which could lead to tragedy charged with a crime.

[Orrex]

3. pipi_k's real name is Pippy Kay.

There. I said it.

[pipi_k]

15. Hah!

Fooled you!

It's really Pipik

[MineralMan]

6. So am I. The DU TOS makes that clear, but juries still leave posts

where someone is identified by name. There have been many instances where the wrong person has been identified in some crime. In some cases it has ruined that person's life.

On DU, we should be very, very careful with such things.

[Warpy]

2. Thanks. I have a feeling we'll learn the name

only if somebody in the department hates his guts (likely) and spills the beans to a legitimate reporter.

I've been suspicious that the guy is well connected somewhere along the line, police departments keeping quiet in most cases only until the family has been protected. It usually doesn't stay this quiet this long.

[MineralMan]

5. I think the real name will eventually surface.

The FBI and MO State Police are investigation, and they have nothing to gain from secrecy on this.

I'm just pissed that the wrong guy was apparently identified and his name is all over the Internet. Retractions never get the same distribution. It's a damned shame.

[Warpy]

8. Me, too, and it's not the first time this has happened due to the Rumor Mill, AKA Twitter

It's amazing to me how quickly people will pick up the least supported nonsense just because they saw it in print on Twitter.

[MineralMan]

11. You're right. It's not the first time.

The DU TOS makes it clear that no personal information or links to personal information is to be posted on DU. That was violated today, but some of the posts still stand, and the name is still visible, even after the post was edited.

This is one part of the TOS that should be enforced vigorously. There's just too much risk of damaging someone's reputation. DU should not be a participant in such exposures. Period.

That's my opinion, anyhow. Juries, however often don't agree, which is part of the problem.

[Ms. Toad]

17. It is not really so clear.

"Do not post or link to any private/personal information about any person, even if it is publicly available elsewhere on the Internet."

If personal information is not allowed to be posted, then we'd best remove all references to Barack Obama (and his address), or Rush Limbaugh, or Elizabeth Warren - just to name a few. Or references to Robin Williams' alleged money problems - or the fact that he was in the early stages of Parkinson's disease.

But wait - they are public people. On the other hand, so is a police officer who shoots someone.

Let me be clear that I am NOT advocating posting this particular policeman's name or address - and depending on the content of the post (which I did not see) I might have been convinced to hide it. But I would not have hidden it based on the TOS, because I do not believe that portion of the TOS has anything to do with not naming names of people who are in the news. By your reasoning, for example, it would preclude posting the name of the police officer even once he is formally identified and charged with a crime.

That particular rule has to do with respecting the privacy of private individuals - particularly those who have chosen pseudonyms in order to participate in DU.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Well said, my dear MineralMan. K&R n/t

[MineralMan]

7. Thanks, Peggy!

[herding cats]

9. That's always good advice in situations like this one.

There are sick people out there who would even make claims they know to be wrong. Just to be spiteful to someone else.

[NCTraveler]

10. Good advice. nt.

[Zorra]

12. K&R nt

[MineralMan]

13. Thanks. I'm surprised it happened and that the original

post that did that was allowed to stand. It's a clear TOS violation.

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. k&r

[HuckleB]

16. "Do The Right Thing" goes for everyone, always.

Good post.

[GusBob]

18. looks as if a lie is cheap

Was it Twain who said: a lie will travel around the world before the truth gets its shoes on

This is very good advice. That thread and its jury results were a big mistake. People need to take notice: many things postedin haste on the Internet and social media can be wrong.

After the " snow on the pyramids " hoax this past winter Rolling Stone did a review of bloggers and things they posted immediatly following breaking news. I think over half of the information given was factually wrong. In some cases it was exactly the opposite of the truth. They reckoned that in their rush to gather click thrus blotters throw caution to the wind. More important to be first, even if wrong, than correct.

[KoKo]

19. Good Points. I'm leery of anything here posted about Anonymous

because of exactly that. Anyone can be "Anonymous" on Twitter. The Boston Bombing reporting of a wrong name by "Anonymous" showed how harmful that could be.

So many tricksters on "Twitter" that we should always be careful unless it's a known Media Source (Reporter or Blogger)...before posting it on here. And even then...there are too many, even from the MSM, rushing to report on Twitter these days to accept a hasty Tweet as the final truth.