Before you balk at the title of this post, hear me out. I have written in the past about the cloak of anonymity worn by trolls and how it allows them to run rampant on the internet with no real accountability or repercussions for their actions. I know firsthand the issues that can and often do arise as a result. Believe me.
I’ve been dealing with this for some time working for traditional news organizations and being directly involved with user comments. User comments on news stories can be vicious and vile. We happen to have moderators at my current company so our comments are a bit more tame. I oversee the team of moderators charged with approving and disapproving comments in real time and they do a great job.
There is some benefit to allowing screen names. Actually there is a need for anonymity in journalism. We need people to provide tips and leak information so corruption can be exposed.
We want the person who knows the bank robber or who saw the hit and run to step forward. Anonymity has often led to justice. It has brought down corporations, resulted in putting criminals behind bars and would-be serial rapists where they belong. Whistle blowers are very important in our society and anonymity allows a certain safety needed for many people to come forward.
The university or state employee that can post an internal document on a news site anonymously can make a big difference and be a great service to a community.
So as much as I hate what anonymity can produce online , let’s not forget about why it is still important. You can’t always put your face behind your message and that’s okay.
Transparency is the buzzword of the moment, but not everything belongs out in the open.
Remember, Deep Throat?
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 29, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Mark @ AlchemyUnited.com
Yes, I agree, there are instances where journalism and anonymity go hand in hand. But that’s journalism. Does that same rule still apply to community and community building?
At the risk of sounding philosophical, if no one is who they say they are does that status devalue their contribution? Is rampant anonymity appropriate in a successful community? Is not someone’s past participation (i.e., the trail of commenting) useful in giving their current and future comments context and authority?
In short, it would seem to me that one must decide if an anonymous contribution to their community is in fact a contribution. I would suggest that anonymous comments be separated and hidden and can only be viewed if the reader opts in, turn on anonymous comments, etc. At the very least that “segregation” forces such comments to be read in their special context.
October 29, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Michelle
I had anonymous commenting enabled on my forum for a couple of years. I use a spam protection service so it worked well. We got at least one new user who started out with anonymous commenting and eventually signed up. I was happy with it and had no intentions of changing.
All it took is one determined troll who took advantage of the anonymous commenting to wreak havoc with the forums and I shut it down. I was sad to see it go but I value my sanity more.
I might try it again at some point, perhaps making anonymous comments go into moderation so I can just mass delete attacks before they are visible to the public. But, for now, I’m enjoying the peace of a more controlled environment.
Michelle
October 29, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Angela Connor
Hi Mark: I am specifically talking about comments on news stories in this particular post. I do think they should be moderated however, to create a civil environment. I am not encouraging rampant anonymity, but I think there is a place for it on news sites because it is often how people come forward with information. I know for a fact that police officers are reading the comments on local crime stories. In that regard it’s a service for the community. People shoudl do what they want on their own blog and in their individual communities. There is a distinction in my eyes.
October 29, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Angela Connor
Hi Michelle: Believe me, I know exactly where you’re coming from. The anonymity can bring major headaches and I can certainly understand the value of making sanity a priority. I live with anonymous comments in my own community, that are only tied to an email address. But as I mentioned to Mark, this is about comments on news stories, particularly local news stories. That’s where I see the benefit.
October 30, 2009 at 6:46 am
Seo
If you have a minute, please take a look at this article.
http://pollitika.com/hrvatska-postaje-prva-zemlja-koja-zatvara-blogere
(use google translate)
It is about one blog owner, on whos blog one of the user commented Vukovar`s major.
The major sewed blog owner (Damir Fintic) and won. Judge claimed that owner is responsible for content of anonym comment, and the owner is guilty.
He has to pay almost 150.000US$ as a “compensation” or go to jail for 3 years.
After you read this, then think again about “good sides” of comment anonymity…
November 1, 2009 at 12:47 am
Mark @ AlchemyUnited.com
Hi Angela – Yes, I understand. But non-vetted comments are not what I believe is understood to represent traditional journalism. I would think that once the story leaves the reporter’s hands then it’s up for public consumption – just like anything else, no? Anonymity is still anonymity. It’s authority must be questioned regardless of how valid the input might seem. As I understand it, the intent of journalism is to be objective. Comments are comments (i.e., subjective). Presenting fiction as fact undermines a true “news” site. IMHO, this general idea is a *major* problem with US “journalism”. It’s concern is newness and ratings, and not truth.
Yes, it can be done. I am only suggesting that it be done in proper context. In other words, this is what was said… And here’s some stuff that was pulled off the bathroom wall
November 1, 2009 at 10:58 am
Angela Connor
Hey Mark: I didn’t say anything about non-vetted. My stance is and has been that the comments are moderated. They should not be presented as fact and that should be clear on the site that they are user comments. I think people get that. It is not up to the public to act as journalists, but there is room for their voices. I think every news site should have standards and make sure that comments adhere to them. And by anonymous, I mean a screen name that does not necessarily give them away. The registration process for the site should ask for enough information so that the organization feels comfortable. We are in agreement that it shoudl be done in proper context.
November 1, 2009 at 11:00 am
Angela Connor
Hi there Seo: Thanks for the link. I still think there is a place for anonymity is terms of how ones name is displayed on comments on NEWS stories specifically. That is what this post is about. It is specific to news comments. A blog owner can do as they wish.
November 5, 2009 at 3:17 pm
If anonymity is no longer needed, let’s ditch the witness protection program « Online Community Strategist
[...] I blogged about the upside and relevance of anonymous comments as they relate to news stories, some people balked. Jason Falls said at Social Media Business Forum [...]
November 6, 2009 at 5:49 pm
If anonymity is no longer needed, let’s ditch the witness protection program… « The SiliconANGLE
[...] I blogged about the upside and relevance of anonymous comments as they relate to news stories, some people balked. Jason Falls said at Social Media Business Forum [...]
November 30, 2009 at 7:17 pm
lucas
Pixel-for-pixel, anonymous comments may or may not be of higher quality; it would be wonderful to see some data on that.
Quality of comments, however, cannot be the only consideration for government agencies; there are free speech issues at play. Similarly, newspapers serve a vital civic role so they should be very hesitant to create conditions which might chill free speech.
We found in a preliminary study in front of the US Capitol here in DC (http://athenabridge.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/data-about-anonymous-online-participation-with-government/) that requiring real names would leave far too many voices out of a national conversation. It would be wonderful to see a similar study on a larger scale.
February 13, 2010 at 4:27 am
Dave
You say that transparency is a buzzword at the moment and I agree but only in that it compliments the idea of interconnectivity, expression and community.
I think the real issue is that if like me you browse the web and like to read anything you stumble across I’m less likely to give my opinion in comment form if I have to register with the website in question to do so, if I can simply enter only the details I want to without having to navigate away from the page or do any confirmation email crap then everyone’s a winner!
However this is not always the case and that’s a shame because it can be a real hindrance to communication which is what it’s all about.