I don’t want to rehash today’s New York Times article about attempts to encourage civility in blogland through a voluntary code of conduct. Rather, let me briefly consider one aspect of this that I’ve wrestled with from time to time: the matter of anonymous comments.
The code, online here, includes this:
We do not allow anonymous comments.
We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name.
I can almost guarantee that Media Nation will adopt this system later in the spring. I like how I’ve seen this implemented on other blogs. Blogger, unfortunately, does not appear to offer any middle ground between full registration and total anonymity (although some commenters here work around that by including their names or pseudonyms). But change is coming.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
A.J. Cordi
I dislike anonymous comments, but only because they don’t seem worth replying to. When you don’t know who is on the other end, the comment often seems empty, even if it is relevant and good.At least Blogger offers the option to allow anonymous comments. And, like your blog, I approve all comments instead of allowing them to be posted directly. However, I think that method – and typing in the goofy letters and numbers – may also be keeping some people from commenting. Oh, well.
Anonymous
EB3 here.anyone who refuses to identify his/her true indentity is a gutless coward.
Peter Porcupine
I’m with EB3 – in fact, ALL of us fantasy identity posters are!BTW – You can take your blogger up a notch, and require Blogger/Google registration (which is rapidly becoming the Internet equivalent of a Social Secuirty number as Google continues its quest to rule the world). That will give YOU an email; its validity can only be proven over the course of time.
Dan Kennedy
PP: I’ve considered requiring Google registration in the past, but have been told by some of my better commenters that they would never do it. Paranoid? Maybe. But I don’t want to lose them.
Ben
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of this per se, but I’d add two things:1. Clearly in this day of yahoo mail/gmail/etc, an e-mail address isn’t a very effective method of preventing anonymity (and the nastiness that often comes with it). It may or may not be helpful in blocking spam, but I don’t think that’s what Dan is really talking about here.2. I think this point has been made before, but it’s worth repeating: This being a media site, many of your readers are in the media. Many of us (myself included) are either actively barred or strongly discouraged from making comments with our names attached. And company policies aside, there are plenty of times where it would be unwise, or even journalistically unethical, to speak for attribution.Ultimately, I don’t think the problem here is anonymity. Yes, doing away with anonymity might help cut down on trolling, libel and related problems, but it will also drive away plenty of serious commenters and worthwhile comments.(And yes, I know I’ve identified a problem without proposing a solution.)For what it’s worth, I’m posting this semi-anonymously, in that I suspect Dan and some of his readers will know who it is, but hopefully the general public will not.
Dan Kennedy
Ben: The system I plan to switch to will (1) require you to provide a valid e-mail address, which will not be published; and (2) allow you to use a pseudonym. It shouldn’t drive away serious commenters at all.
Anonymous
Unless there is an ongoing problem, I think blogs should allow for anonymous postings. Many(most?) sites allow for anonymous postiungs and there is never a problem. If a problem post appears, it can be easily removed).If there is an ongoing problem, then I can see the need for it.Blogs like yourts dan have not been having a problem with the typical “hit and run” comments.
Anonymous
>>This being a media site, many of your readers are in the media. Many of us (myself included) are either actively barred or strongly discouraged from making comments with our names attached. And company policies aside, there are plenty of times where it would be unwise, or even journalistically unethical, to speak for attribution.<<I agree 100% with the above statement>>anyone who refuses to identify his/her true indentity is a gutless coward.<<This is obviously an overstatement from someone who doesn’t understand what it’s like for those who work in the media to comment on the media. (And the contractual issues that could be involved.)
Dan Kennedy
Anon 8:52: I’ll say it again — once I make the change, commenters will still be able to post pseudonymously. I don’t mind people creating online personae and using those to post. I do mind totally anonymous comments.Please double-check the “gutless coward” remark. He was being funny — his online persona is that of the fictional grandson of a legendary car dealer. (It is fiction, right EB3? Hmmm … maybe not.)