I think this is muddying issues somewhat. The question of whether Torres’s involvement should have been disclosed is not about anonymity norms. (It’s not like Torres was trying to avoid Forum rules or anything in co-authoring the academic paper ‘Democratising Risk’.)
The question is whether the (alleged) involvement of Torres should have been disclosed as part of the recounting of the tale of the paper’s reception. Because Torres’s involvement was not disclosed, many people were trying to draw inferences about epistemics and community dynamics in EA while ignorant of a very important fact about why the project might have been getting negative feedback: i.e., that one of the co-authors was [harsh, but all demonstrably true via public evidence] a serial fabulist with a history of harassing and defaming those he disagrees with, and an obviously hostile agenda.
I should be clear: my understanding is that if Torres was indeed involved, then it was not as an anonymous author or anything, and that knowing Torres was involved would explain some of why people might have been negative about the project.
(As would the probable fact that, if Torres was involved, earlier versions of the paper were more hostile in tone).
If Torres was an anonymous collaborator the whole time, then I wouldn’t really care if Cremer and Kemp never disclosed that fact. Because it wouldn’t be relevant for drawing conclusions from the alleged pushback that the project got.
I think this is muddying issues somewhat. The question of whether Torres’s involvement should have been disclosed is not about anonymity norms. (It’s not like Torres was trying to avoid Forum rules or anything in co-authoring the academic paper ‘Democratising Risk’.)
The question is whether the (alleged) involvement of Torres should have been disclosed as part of the recounting of the tale of the paper’s reception. Because Torres’s involvement was not disclosed, many people were trying to draw inferences about epistemics and community dynamics in EA while ignorant of a very important fact about why the project might have been getting negative feedback: i.e., that one of the co-authors was [harsh, but all demonstrably true via public evidence] a serial fabulist with a history of harassing and defaming those he disagrees with, and an obviously hostile agenda.
I should be clear: my understanding is that if Torres was indeed involved, then it was not as an anonymous author or anything, and that knowing Torres was involved would explain some of why people might have been negative about the project.
(As would the probable fact that, if Torres was involved, earlier versions of the paper were more hostile in tone).
If Torres was an anonymous collaborator the whole time, then I wouldn’t really care if Cremer and Kemp never disclosed that fact. Because it wouldn’t be relevant for drawing conclusions from the alleged pushback that the project got.
Exactly!
No one knew I was involved, though. Honestly. All that happened after I’d moved on. I was as surprised as everyone else to read Zoe’s EA Forum post.
That’s fair, I guess this objection applies to the post on the EA forum but not to the linked article.