It's very interesting what you say about the strength of a name. I do think that anthropomorphism can be a good thing in the case of conservation. By giving Cecil a name and a life story (incidentally a very cosy British name, which is interesting in itself), it brings the issue into emotional focus. We are attracted to characters and stories, not data. The plight of a named lion strikes a stronger chord than the numbing statistic of 600 "un-named" lions dying every year. 

So do we care more about nature if we make anthropomorphise it? I think yes, as it creates a relatable personal connection with our own lives. 

I'd like to get in touch with you next week as this is an area I am very interested in exploring and I hope I can be of help. Paul 

We're just starting to look a lot at Storytelling in Wildbook (http://www.wildbook.org). 

This is what a data profile looks like in Wildbook:

http://www.whaleshark.org/individuals.jsp?number=A-001

While we allow for basic anthropomorphism via nicknaming, it's still a very data centric view of what a combined group of reserchers knows about the animal.

We have experimented with social media profiles which interestingly have an analogous data schema as mark-recapture:

http://fb.wildme.org/wildme/public/profile/WS-A-001

But we want to go ever further with storytelling mediums (e.g., story maps?) that can be automated from scientific data input, especially where cit sci data and reserch data can be reliably mixed. 

So in addition to a name, we want to build a relationship through a portrayal of its life history and even potentially a view of the social network of the animal participates in (if such data can be shared safely.).