I’ll get me coat.

Shane – I edited your comment just to make your link inline – it was throwing out my beloved page layout! DB

As I and Steve pointed out, mechanisms can be put in place to get around the identity issue if it really is a problem, and the message is one thought worth passing on, but this really should be an exception.

Of course, one of the risks of any organisation engaging with these tools is that negative comments will come out. The management of that risk is to ensure that criticism is handled positively.

Perhaps it’s as much about perspective as anything. Anonymous blog comments are one thing, making comments within a professional online network might be quite another.

Yes, an anonymous comment carries less weight than one attached to a well-known and respected person. So what?

Yes, anonymous comments are more likely to be abusive, but the blog owner can allow registered users to post and pre-moderate anonymous ones, but I don’t see the need for the site owner to post on their behalf as Steve suggests. Sorted already.

Yes, the poster may have a false sense of security but if someone simply prefers some anonymity as opposed to be afraid of being tracked down throug court action then it isn’t an unreasonable step to take by using a false name.

I can understand that some people may wish to submit a non-attributable item or comment, but I do worry that this facility could be abused if it’s made an officially supported feature of the platform – e.g. a ‘gripe channel’.

I’ve suggested a compromise to those users who are presently lobbying for anonymous postings – give details of the post to the community facilitator and he/she will publish the item on the user’s behalf (e.g. with a preamble along the lines of “This issue has been raised by a member of the community. Please let me have your comments”. I know this still doesn’t guarantee total anonymity since apart from anything else, the facilitator knows who the person is, but I would argue that if something is so sensitive that you can’t share it with a trusted member of your own community, then you probably shouldn’t be publishing it all.

The media, in particular the tabloids, are littered weekly (if not daily) with information that comes from people who think they are talking anonymously.

Anonymity only works if it is guaranteed – and no sensible ISP can expect to be able to keep user details private if they put up illegal, or even potentially illegal, content. I know that sounds very dramatic, but comments can so easily be libellous or slanderous.

Additionally, conflicts of interest could expose anonymity. If you post something on, say, a website run by one government department, who says favours can’t be called in from another?

Anyone who truly needs or wants to contribute anonymously will set up false accounts linking to false emails and false websites. This requires a lot of hard work on their part (the level depending on how paranoid they are and how much trouble they plan to cause). But this level of work is needed if you want to be anonymous – a simple ANONYMOUS tick box can just create a false sense of security.

I also had mentioned to my bank manager that I didn’t like the new system and that I wasn’t alone judging by what was being said online.

The next day he called me back to let me know he thought my comments were unfair.

Now I’m sure my lovely bank manager won’t hold it against me, but I’ll never really know until I need to ask a favour. Maybe I should have made my comment anonymously…