Organizational accounts are communal accounts created for members of an organization to use to make edits to that organization's page. Examples include UrbanBodyStaff, HealthEducationPromotion, and WillowsManagement and willows. We have been seeing more and more of these accounts as of late. While it has been my feeling that these accounts are a bad thing, to the best of my knowledge, we've never discussed the issue in great detail nor have we discussed how to deal with it.

List of Organizational Accounts — prepared a while ago so out of date Linked edit histories that demonstrate a pattern of abuse Disable — the proposal to disallow these accounts

Argument Against

I believe that the problems with such accounts are numerous. Here are just a few of the problems I've thought of.

  • Such accounts lack individual accountability. Individuals should have their own accounts so that each individual editor is responsible for their own edits.
  • Such accounts go against the general principles enumerated at the Importance of using your RealName.
  • Such accounts discourage editors from editing pages that have nothing to do with their organization. We want editors to be part of our editing community, not just curators of their organization's page.
  • Such accounts may cause some editors to give unnecessary deference to the organization when it comes to contentious edits. This may undermine the general principle of community ownership of the wiki.

As of right now, I am in favor of adopting a policy that states that these accounts should be disallowed. However, I recognize that we haven't had any major problems with such accounts and such a measure may be drastic and alienating. I also recognize that perhaps the problems I've listed aren't really problems.

Does anyone have any other thoughts on the matter? Responses to my thoughts? —WilliamLewis

Large business perspective

Please understand that our reason for using a business name because it is very important for us to do what is respectful and appropriate in a community based web setting. We have set up this account with a business name to avoid the mingling of personal opinions which don’t belong linked with our general apartment updates. As apartment management staff members, we work hard to keep our “work” opinions general. For example at work, we don’t evoke personal religious opinions, as doing so might be seen as a way of isolating renters with other such opinions. I fear that by forcing us to use individual names for apartment updates, you will remove our ability to contribute open opinions on other matters in our free time. I believe the user CovertProfessor uses a name other than his own for a similar reason. I’m confused as to why the same understanding cannot be expressed to us. —ChautauquaManagement

Response to large business perspective

The reasons for businesses wanting anonymity may be somewhat similar, but in practice, organizational accounts are very different from other anonymous accounts. For one, the organization accounts are not tied to any one person. I am one person; I imagine that anyone who has read enough of what I've written can tell that it's all been written by the same person, and those who have wanted to get in touch with me by email have been able to do so. Without an account being tied to one person, there is no accountability. We've even had cases in the past where people used organization accounts without in fact reflecting the opinion of the business. This is something that businesses shouldn't want, either. Another difference is that most non-organizational anonymous users edit many sorts of pages. I think by now I have edited just about every type of page that the wiki has: pages about restaurants, pages about parks, pages about politics, etc., etc. I am not here to promote a business, which of course violates the wiki's non-profit status. I interact with other editors as an individual and work with them to find solutions when there are disagreements. I don't just pop in here to promote my own interests and then pop out. —CovertProfessor

Comments:

You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2009-04-02 10:27:29   I like the idea of a "role" account such as this. The problem, of course, is that there is no way to tell whether or not the account is actually related to the business it purports to be related to. For example, if I created an account called BobsShoeAndTroutEmporiumManagement, you might think that I was the manager of Bob's shoe and trout emporium, even if I am not. Or maybe you once worked for Bob and had the password to that account, but Bob fired you after that late night trout snorting incident that he caught on camera. You then might use the account to hurt Bob's business.

One possibility would be to create accounts that can only edit a SPECIFIC page, and to give those accounts a management name. But of course, there's still the problem of not knowing who is actually using the account. There might also be liability for the wiki if someone got a management only account that they shouldn't have, and used it to damage a business. (You should ask the legal experts on the wiki if that is actually an issue.) —IDoNotExist

2009-04-02 12:48:26   Maybe Wiki Spot should provide free personal accounts, but start charging for corporate accounts. —BrentLaabs

2009-04-02 18:00:47   In the same way that not using a real name to post under, or at least putting together a fleshed out personal page, is like wearing a ski mask to a social gathering; using a "Role" account is like wearing a uniform. The problem with uniforms is that anybody can put one on and impersonate the owner of a business, city official, or other role. I'd rather that the wiki didn't have to focus on validating either names or roles and could just be a place for people to come and build a helpful resource for the whole community. —JasonAller

2009-04-03 08:28:10   I think it should be be generally discouraged, but I have no big problem with it. We've seen a few cases where people get in trouble at their place of work for responding or commenting on their business pages, and in that situation, at least a "Role" account shelters them a little and gives them a chance to respond from the proper role. There's similar positive aspects of it, and I definitely think, for example, the HealthEducationPromotion account is A-ok. Some level of anonymity for some of that stuff is more than understandable.

The apartment complex manager accounts I'm more iffy about, mostly because some of them cross-edit due to sharing owners/management, and I think down the road it could potentially become a problem if they sit to nurse their own pages. Overall, I think the best thing to do is simply ask that the people behind a role account recognize the differences between the two types of accounts. We can ask that they also join and contribute on a more personal level, but I think that most people will realize how quick/easy it is to make an account (since they just did it...) and if they want to contribute at some point beyond their work priorities, they will. Otherwise, unless it starts to become a problem, I don't think we have yet need to try to preemptively weed'em out. —EdWins

2009-04-03 18:05:06   I like the idea us allowing, even encouraging these accounts. Of course real names are good, but when a business owner is speaking on behalf of the business, I want to be able to associate the user account with the business. Sometimes owners comment on reviews on their pages, and you have to interpret from the context or other posts that it is in fact the owner, but it's not always clear. In these cases, it is effectively the "business" talking anyway. I'm reading the reviews and comments to decide whether to give the business my custom, not whether to make friends with the owner.

If you want the actual name of the owner, isn't this a matter of public record? We can get it if we need it, but 99% of the time, knowing that the owner is posting in the interest of the business by using the business name just things more clear. It's not the same as hiding behind some other anonymous username because the interests of the owner are the same as the interests of the business, so there's no ambiguity. Sure, it's possible to fake it or for rogue employees to misrepresent the business, but don't we have other ways to deal with this? It's possible to do that now, but I'm not aware of this being a problem. We could just reserve the username of the business for the owner, and if the owner disputes ownership of the account, we can figure out how to resolve it, otherwise assume that the business name account is the owner. —MatthewPearson

2009-04-21 08:31:30   WikiAdmin. I rest my case. —JasonAller

2009-12-09 17:34:30   I think the recent changes that came with the Wiki Community/For Profit Restrictions are a good reason to look at this issue again. —JasonAller

2010-01-09 01:19:12   Originally I thought this wasn't a big deal, but lately I think I've seen more negativity on the wiki that I think is coming from the facelessness of these accounts. I think I now support banning them, in addition to explaining about the community ownership and dynamic nature of the wiki. In general I have agreed with MatthewPearson's comment above, but I think that most of these situations have turned out to be negative. —NickSchmalenberger

2010-01-09 09:26:39   I'm not in favor of the organizational accounts. Didn't we see an instance recently with one of the ISPs where an employee used an organizational name, only to have the owner say that the employee didn't speak for the company? It was a bit of a mess. And it is clear that when people create those accounts, they don't intend to fully participate in the wiki. All they do is hover over "their" page, watching for any change and pouncing if they don't like it. —CovertProfessor

2010-01-09 09:40:16   I am of the opinion that all accounts belonging to commercial entities run afoul of Wiki Community/For Profit Restrictions as they, by their very nature, engage in the promotion of their business and don't contribute to the community in any other way. —WilliamLewis

2010-01-09 10:58:49   I'm going to start inviting editors using Organizational Accounts to start closing their accounts and opening new ones using their real names as I see them edit. I still need to improve the language of that invitation and make sure that the instructions for closing the old account don't make it hard for them to open a new one. I suggest that several of us try to come up with such language and see if we can't reach the point at which we have pretty good instructions. good pages to link them to are Welcome to the Wiki, real name, Welcome to the Wiki/Business Owner. —JasonAller

Please close this account and edit under your real name. Instructions on how to do so are on the Importance of using your RealName page. There has been discussion about people using organizational accounts and since Wiki Spot, who hosts Davis Wiki, got their 501(c)(3) status there have been some restrictions about promoting for profit businesses. We welcome your input, but prefer that you do so using an individual account rather than an organizational one. If you haven't read Welcome to the Wiki/Business Owner, please do so.

  • My default base message in cases like these will be something like:

—JasonAller

  • I'd definitely leave out the reference to 501(c)3 status, etc. That could easily confuse someone into thinking they can't contribute information about their business. I'd be very careful about that in general. I did some work rewording the guideline (here) which hasn't been reflected on the corresponding Davis Wiki page yet. I'd just tell people to please create a new account with their real name and use that instead. I disagree with William that using an organizational account runs afoul of the new guideline, but I'd encourage folks to use accounts under their real names just for encouraging broader participation & community.

    Re: org accounts & guideline — an org account is identification, not promotion. In some ways these accounts make bias easier for casual editors to see, so there's positives here too. —PhilipNeustrom

  • Here is the revised version:

Please close this account and edit under your real name. Instructions on how to do so are on the Importance of using your RealName page. Organizational accounts pose several problems, but the core issue is that they detract from a sense of community when one or more people use the name of an organization. This leads to a sense of faceless, impersonal action rather than the actions and statements of a member of the community. As a member of the Davis community, your contributions are very much appreciated, but it would be better if you make them using your name rather then the name of your organization. If you haven't read Welcome to the Wiki/Business Owner, and Wiki Community/For Profit Restrictions please do so. —JasonAller

  • I'm not sure if this puts this in a way that will be persuasive to a business owner or employee. It might be better to point out that organization accounts make them seem as though they are a different sort of editor from other editors (perhaps with more authority to edit "their" page, which is not the case) and that from the point of view of their own self-interest, responding with a name appears much more personal and caring. (Think how often customer service emails are signed with a name these days). —cp

2010-01-09 20:16:44   These accounts are a Bad Thing. But they do less harm than the myriad non-accountable and oftentimes irresponsible anonymous posters that are attracted to the wiki. Both problems need to be fixed, not just the easy one. —JimStewart

  • (As a side note, I agree with you Jim, but this particular one is a more directly addressable issue, and correcting one thing out of several is better than none at all (assuming the zeitgeist is that it needs correcting). -jw)

2010-01-28 11:58:29   I think we may be causing unnecessary drama with the insistence that folks using these accounts start editing under their real name. Perhaps a bit of forceful encouragement with some explanation (which was lacking in the messages left today) would be more helpful. We haven't had any actual issue with any of these accounts, as far as I know.

They leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I recognize that businesses don't want employees speaking on behalf of their organization. But we have to remember the goal here: to help improve some of the dynamics of the wiki. Causing lots of people to get upset or confused obviously won't help, and forcing an organization, against their will, to stop using their organizational account may just prompt them to stop contributing. —PhilipNeustrom

  • I follow the rule of thumb that they should be discouraged socially, but I'm not really sure how to do that in a way that doesn't discourage the breathing person on the other keyboard. I know that I've changed my mind on how to handle this every couple months or so. To be honest, it was gratifying in an simple and emotional way to see William's messages... and then humbling to see the respectful, polite, and openly questioning response. Here's the flip side: I know I've been talking to Brent about using the name of "Wiki Spot" for some official things; there absolutely are some kind of community relations that just make sense to do as "I am speaking on behalf of...". It's sort of how a person can give a speech as a private person, or that same person can give a speech as the office they hold (mayor, ceo, president of a non-profit, solider, etc) with entirely different context because they are invoking their position. There is a valid distinction between speaking as yourself and on behalf of an organization — especially when relating to a larger community. You are establishing that you are speaking officially for the group in which you hold a position. The problem is that most of these "role accounts" never engage, so I think people don't feel they are actually engaging in the wiki community, but rather just "updating their business listings", going mechanically through Craigslist, ApartmentHunter, DavisWiki, FindAHome, Facebook, done. Now, that does leave a bad taste in my mouth (even though, as Philip points out, they are contributing through that act). I feel like adding a concluding sentence with my position, but I don't have a position. Maybe the best thing would be to encourage personal accounts rather than discourage role accounts. Incidentally, the actual real two problems that many of these accounts have is that they believe the entry is their personally controlled business listing, and they treat it as such, wiping out comments and links. If they reply, they carry a faceless, impersonal strength that I worry intimidates people (in a similar way that invoking "sorry, it's company policy" turns an individual's decision into a implacable, impersonal truth). It's a royal pain in the butt to clean up after them, and I don't like people feeling intimidated from having a say. That doesn't mean they all role accounts do that, but they certainly have a higher percentage. That behavior certainly needs to be discouraged, regardless of who does it. To address Philip's point regarding goals, I'm twisting uncertainly on the point if eliminating role accounts would help "improve some of the dynamics of the wiki". There have been business owners who posted as themselves that behaved that same way (although, perhaps tellingly, the two big examples of in the last few weeks have posted under role accounts). This is a lousy lump of thought, but it's all I have, and maybe it advances some thoughts for somebody who can put it all together. Or maybe this is simply an unclear area where best effort has to be made in every individual case. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards

2010-01-28 14:15:26   For my part, I think ChautauquaManagement makes a very good point about why a larger business would want to be represented on the wiki in such a way. For small businesses, especially sole proprietorships, I don't think it makes much sense. Make clear your affiliation with the organization, and post as yourself. But that doesn't cover every situation. I've spent some time as an administrator of an online community in which I was also a very active participant, and there were several occasions where I wished I could easily distinguish to others whether I was speaking as an individual or as an administrator. They really were two separate personas. I also was an administrator of sorts for an online game (a GM for Shards of Dalaya, on the off chance anyone has heard of it), and the ability to toggle my identity from the character I played to my GM role was invaluable in mediating disputes and dealing with issues that came up.

In short, I think that there's a lot of value in being able to distinguish when you're speaking as YourName, and when you're speaking as a representative of a larger entity. My personal feeling is that the people behind the organizational accounts should be encouraged simply to create an account of their own, as well, and get involved with the wiki that way as well, rather than being discouraged from using the organizational account. Subject, of course, to my comment above re: organization size. —TomGarberson

2010-02-24 11:07:27   "When you signed up, you were explicitly told NOT to use a business name. You did anyway. We were serious. It was not just a suggestion. Please read the Importance of using your RealName. Close this account immediately and edit under your real name." There is plenty of discussion of this issue, but clearly no consensus, no "policy," and obviously no basis for the post by William Lewis. it continues his pattern of officious, offensive comments to business owners, and implies an elevated status as senior editor or administrator that he does not have. I would urge that his post on the LakewoodApartments page be removed, and that he allow others to engage business owners at how to best become members of the Wiki community. His posts are entirely counterproductive. —DonShor

  • Actually, in this one case, he is referring to the actual wording of the signup form. See the screenshot on Identity (or log out and click "signup" to see for yourself). It is much more officious and absolute than I would have worded it, but the kernel of what he is saying is based on what is actually on the signup page. That doesn't invalidate your concerns (I'm only trying to point out the obvious counterpoint), as the tone is quite harsh. -jw
  • "Close this account immediately and edit under your real name." Sure, when this standard is applied to all pseudonymous (is that a word?) accounts, I will see that perhaps using the imperative tone was appropriate. But (1) it is a pattern of behavior by Lewis; (2) it implies an authority that he does not have. The 'Identity' link won't open at the moment, so I'll look at it later. But reading the different pages that are linked on this topic give no policy, nor even a clear consensus yet. I understand the argument on both sides. I'm also not thrilled with pseudonyms, and actively dislike anonymous posters — and consider them much more harmful to the Wiki than organizational accounts.

2010-02-24 11:44:33   Ok, the link opened. "Please do not use nickname or business name" is permissive and does not lead logically to "you were explicitly told NOT to use a business name." It is nicer to ask, but it leaves open the possibility that someone will decline to accede to your request! When you order someone to do something, it implies that you have the authority to do so, and it is often counterproductive. Perhaps they could be urged to sign up as LakeshoreApartments/Leslie, or something similar which gives an identity to the organizational account. Organizational accounts can be subject to abuse, and if the business owner or manager understands this he/she is more likely to cooperate. If it sounds like some kind of policy, a newcomer to Wiki will want to know where the "policies" page is and who is in charge of them. Discussing things with a nebulous coterie of editors is like fencing in the fog. —DonShor

  • Again, I'm not defending William when I point out the phrase. What he wrote is well over the line of what I would do myself. But your issue is with William and his edits, and I'm not quite sure why you're discussing it here rather than discussing it with him. He's the only one you seem to have an issue with, not a general problem with the wiki community as a whole. Actually, so far, I'm the only one who has been discussing it with him, so I'm not sure what your goal in this particular thread is. -jw
    • I believe that if organizational accounts are going to be discouraged, that an alternative should be suggested (as I noted above and have just bold-ed). One of my issues is with the way business members of the Wiki are treated in general, but I think this particular aspect of it probably belongs on this page. To your other point, I have not found it productive to discuss things with William Lewis. That could change, I suppose. — Don
      • Hey, I supported actually doing business (as in actually engaging in commerce) on the wiki itself, like a public square or a more open Farmers Market (as the wiki doesn't have limited space or public health and fire safety considerations which limit the number of vendors at the Farmers Market). Of course, as a nonprofit, we can't do that anymore, but I advocated full participation by business on the wiki (as they are part of the community itself). I've only recently come to the conclusion that role account names are a negative thing, and that's for different reasons than almost anybody else (see LawReviewEditor and LawReview for the night I changed my mind on the issue, and some of the thoughts that led me there... which have more to do with individual accountability and strengthening the rights and responsibilities of the individual people editing than any kind of commercial or community issue. The other, unspoken issue is that of the social equality difference between a person in a uniform or behind a desk and one who isn't). I would still love to see the (now impossible) growth of actual commercial activity on the wiki, but if I could have that dream, I would much rather see the individual employees and business managers and owners interact as individuals rather than shifting their actions to a non-specific entity, the same as they interact individually in a physical business. -jw
      • You have never engaged me in discussion over editorial issues. I am happy to discuss things. I have a feeling you're thinking of that time when you reverted what I and two other editors had restored while discussion over the removal of the content in question was ongoing. —WilliamLewis
        • Woops, edit conflict! Replying to both now: Feb. 2 is just one example, William: you were reverting and accused me of "petty vandalism" without using the talk page. Oh, and you used that imperative tone then, too. But this page is about organizational accounts. I think if I wanted to have an account as RedwoodBarn/Don, that would be a reasonable way of identifying myself as an individual who is associated with the business. If a new apartment manager comes along at Lakeshore, then a new account is appropriate for that individual associated with that business. I really think this can be explained to the business as an advantage. —Don
          • And then their history on the wiki is severed each time they change jobs or the place changes names? They are limited to making edits that have to do with the business (since they are using the name)? It's really not a great idea, IMO. -jw
  • You see the wording as permissive; I see it as merely being polite. —WilliamLewis

AllegreApartments

2010-10-18 20:40:38   Is everybody okay with AllegreApartments being used by multiple people? They've already deleted some comments and somewhat swept the edit behind the plurality of people using the account. It wasn't heinous, but the lack of accountability in the multi-person account kind of worries me, especially when there's some questionable editing occurring (and I mean that literally — there are edits occurring that I am questioning the reason behind). Personally I don't like the role accounts (in part because they imply greater authority-by-uniform, and also this lack of accountability where 'the company says it' rather than a person), but this is more a matter of the multiple individuals behind one account. It's a pretty good specific example of the multiple-people case. Thoughts? —JabberWokky

  • No I am not ok with it. This war needs to be handled privately. It is one thing to post a comment and let that be that but when they request and give you multiple ways to contact them and you don't do so (and say it's because of reasons in their comments here) then I don't think the battle should be allowed to continue. The Wiki is not meant to be a warzone. —PeterBoulay.
    • That doesn't have much to do with the topic of organizational accounts, nor the specific case of multiple-people. -jw
    • Sorry...confusing different issues/different pages. PeteB
  • For the record, I (Richard Atherton) have identified myself behind every edit and response under the AllegreApartments username. I have been the sole editor behind this account since about late May to early June. I have advised my manager (Jaymes Latch) that he needs to sign his comments if he ever leaves one. He has not left a single comment or response since I was brought into the office. —Richard (Allegre)
    • Richard-I recommend creating an account called RichardAtherton and only post using that account.—PeteB
      • And JaymesLatch for Jaymes. It would help clarify things quite a bit, in my opinion. Of course, the reason I brought it up here was to seek the opinions of others. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards
    • As for organizational accounts maybe a format like Allegre/Richardatherton should be used. Full names required or they're not allowed? Just make it a rule...it makes sense. —PeterBoulay
    • I have an account under "RickJames", but that is reserved for personal use. That account is meant for me to leave reviews and comments as I please. "AllegreApartments" is meant for business use only, which is what I am doing right now. This account was made for the sole purpose of management staff responding to comments left by Wiki-goers. The username adds a sense of officiality (I'm adding that one to the dictionary) to the responses. Signing at the bottom just reinforces that. With a properly maintained user-page (all full names are included there), an "Organizational Account" is completely harmless as all the possible users are accounted for on the page. —Richard (Allegre)
      • The aura of 'officiality' is one of the problems. How is what you add more official than Reneng's comments or the comments of any other member of the community? -jw
    • BTW, I really like the idea of that username format. I'm not sure how much of a difference it is with what I currently do, but if the DavisWiki gods will accept that idea over my current signatures, I am definitely down for it and the manager (Jaymes) welcomes it as well. —Richard (Allegre)
      • It's pretty much up to you... go ahead and disable the other account and create new ones if you'd like. Or keep the current one if you want. Just don't create more than one (sockpuppets are generally frowned upon). :) There are no "DavisWiki gods", just a bunch of individual people trying to work together in a community effort. -jw
      • We'll try to behave... Thank you for the help! —Richard (Allegre)
        • Heh. It's not about behaving... we all just have to figure out a way to get along that is aimed toward a positive end result. The wiki is edited by normal people. When a person is spraypainting male genitals on a park bench, most people will yell at them to quit it. On the wiki, removing comments is vandalism. So, when you did it — and especially when the person whose comments you removed complained — there was a outcry against that act. The wiki is like a huge garden we all add to, and help nurture. A few people try to abuse it, either through ignorance or (rarely) maliciousness, but the bulk of people try to help make it better. Sometimes the zeal can get a bit antagonistic, but it's generally aimed at making things better. -jw
        • My suggestion would be making a user account to the effect of RichardAtAllegre (or Allegre/RichardAtherton if the wiki accepts that format of username). You can note on the user page your association with the company, and your alternate username. I think it's good to be clear when someone editing is doing so from the perspective of business representative, but it's also important to have a degree of identity and accountability which isn't necessarily present with an organizational account. I haven't been following recent changes that closely lately, so I haven't seen the "questionable" or problematic edits. My impression has been that you're very cooperative and constructive, Richard. But since there have apparently been issues, I think the easiest solution would be a basic name change identifying you and any other representatives individually. —TomGarberson
          • I meant that utterly literally, and not in the "shady" sense of the word... there were edits that were, and should have been questioned. I'd have questioned you, Tom, had you removed a bunch of comments. Not questioned as in "they are bad", but questioned as in asking the editor "Hunh? Whad'ja do that for?!?". The problem in this case is that there's not a specific person to ask about the edits, but rather a number of people using one account. To be clear: I brought it up as a "specific example of the multiple-people case". The whole accusations of "war" or whatever were tossed into the mix, and has nothing to do with my initial comment. The thread kind of got broadsided by other issues. It happens. -jw
            • Yeah, that was sort of my impression reviewing the series of edits on this page today. My suggestion is directed at the general topic of this page (organizational accounts and problems) as applied to this specific case (Richard and/or Jaymes, representing Allegre). It doesn't really have anything to do with any "war" that was going on, and I don't know if it'd help that problem. But in terms of general wiki citizenship, I think it'd be a good way for business representatives to identify themselves. —tg

2011-04-22 20:22:02   I'm curious, what do people think of user names along the lines of "BobAtChautauqua"? Would that be a decent compromise, including the establishment of some amount of personal identity, while still establishing the association? Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to simply saying "no organizational accounts," informing those organizational accounts that they need to edit under a different name, suggest an example, and if they ignore it, just ban the account with an invitation to create a new, appropriate one.

It's worth noting that I don't think this would resolve all the problems. Management at the Willows would very likely still delete other people's photos and whatnot. Business owners who do too much promotional crap would probably still do so. But it gets rid of the notion of an excessively authoritative voice. Instead of MANAGEMENT, you're dealing with So-and-So at Wherever. —TomGarberson

  • I'm kind of conflicted which is why I haven't added an oppinion on this before. After rereading this, I've decided I don't like Organizational accounts.Sometimes, such as here it's hard to tell exactly what's going on without some digging. I feel like it would be best, if you were posting in an offical capacity to use your personal account and simply sign it with an offical name or title. Something like this: (The second link being just because I like linking —MM Front Desk Representative, La Quinta
  • I think Tom's suggestion of names like "BobAtChautauqua" is interesting and worth considering. Really, it's how businesses usually do business over the phone. You get a first name, so you know who you are talking to and who to ask for next time, but it is rare to get a last name. —CovertProfessor
    • That's a good point. It even passes the JabberWokky test ("Would you introduce yourself like that to your neighbors?")! —tg
Add tags