Readers on anonymous blog posts

A few weeks back, I asked for readers' opinions about whether The N&O should let people make comments on its Web site, www.newsobserver.com, without giving their real names. After all, the paper does not allow anonymous letters to the editor.

I received a good number of responses, some of which I'll share below. Most opposed anonymous comments.

That notion is gaining currency in the broader blogosphere. In response to an ugly incident involving death and sexual threats to well-known blogger Kathy Sierra, two national leaders of the online community are proposing a "blogger code of conduct" that would discourage anonymity.

Jimmy Wales, creator of Wikipedia, and publisher/blogger Tim O'Reilly posted their proposal recently on O'Reilly's site, www.radar.oreilly.com. Among the seven points: "Consider eliminating anonymous comments. ... There are important contexts in which anonymity is important, for example, for political speech in repressive regimes. But in most contexts, accountability via identity changes how people behave. Requiring a valid e-mail address for comments won't prevent people who want to hide their identity from doing so, but it's one more indication that accountability is valued."

News & Observer editors have discussed the online anonymity issue and decided to continue the current policy of allowing people not to use their real names. "We'll continue to encourage people to use their names and hope they will," said Melanie Sill, The N&O's executive editor. "But I think the Internet is a different environment, and we have to recognize that."

She said that inappropriate comments have not been a great problem with the blogs and forums on the N&O site and that she'd rather have more participation than full names. Sill said she's not aware of any newspapers that ban anonymity.

I have seen boorish behavior on some of our blogs, and some readers say that has discouraged them from participating. As I said in the previous column, I'd go against the industry trend in the hopes of generating a higher quality conversation.

Regardless, following are some of your comments. As you'll see, several people would not let me use their names, but I used their comments anyway to allow a fuller discussion. (Maybe that proves Sill's point.)

• "When people get behind a keyboard and feel they can write/ post/chat/e-mail without fear of identification, something awful happens and their inner voice -- normally covered up by layers of proper behavior taught through years of being a human being -- is made loud and obnoxious, similar to what happens when someone has too much to drink." -- Jim Metcalf, Cary.

• "I believe firmly that The N&O should allow anonymous postings. Freedom of expression and the full exchange of ideas trump identification. Many citizens, particularly those in the public sector, do not dare to exercise their freedom of speech in a newspaper or blog. Identification can lead to retribution." -- Anonymous.

• "Anonymous blog comments are no better than graffiti, and are often as immature and irresponsible. The cure for both is the same: obliteration." -- David Thomas, Raleigh.

• "The crazies who fill a blog with dirt provide an invaluable frame of reference or context within which we can spot the gold in the dirt in the sluice. Let the sluice flow!" -- C. Edward Buckley III, Durham.

• "Anonymity, it seems to me, is easily used by folks who have something very negative or nasty to say. If that is their opinion, they should take responsibility for it and be held accountable." -- Vicki Morris, Raleigh.

• "Open debate means being in the open; it is not debate when one side is invisibly slinging mud." -- Gene Montague, Wake Forest.

• "With regard to protecting anonymity. It served Woodward and Bernstein (and the country) well. The safety net is a good editor." -- Anonymous.

• "I believe debating issues has a great social good. In fact I would like to see more of it on our blog. But with anonymous posters, it inevitably crosses the line into irresponsibility and even personal attack. ... It boils down to a question of whether The N&O values the image it has worked so hard to build -- or rather be lumped with the likes of the National Enquirer and other yellow rags." -- Stan Norwalk, Cary.

• "You don't have any obligation to publish rubbish. You need to moderate your comments." -- Bill Gerrard, Cary.

• "I'd like The N&O to at least provide online readers with an option to 'turn off' (i.e., not display) those comments and contributions which are anonymous or pseudonymous." -- Bruce Rosar, Cary.

• "I've only posted on the Wake Ed and Wake Pol blogs and always used my real name. I largely discount comments make by those that hide behind pseudonames. From reading those two blogs, it's gotten bad and now has largely become a waste to read responses." -- Alex Fuller, Cary.

• "In matters of debate, providing identity should be a condition of the right to speak on the topic, especially when the arena for such debate is provided by a third party such as a newspaper or other media outlet." -- Bruce V. Cartier, Raleigh.