To name or not to name? The anonymous comments conundrum

•    Similarly, The Rapidian, a neighborhood news start up in Grand Rapids, Michigan, requires real names. “Anonymous comments destroy civil discourse and people hide behind false names,” said Roberta King, a vice president with the Grand Rapids Community Foundation, which funds the site along with the Knight Foundation. (Disclosure: I consult with the Knight program that funds this site.)

•    Voice of San Diego began requiring real names in December. At the same time, with a redesign, the site opened all articles to commenters. Previously, comments were enabled only on opinion articles and blogs.

“We decided to simply raise it to the standard that reporters and letters to the editor stewards have used. In fact, I've always wondered how or why a newspaper would decide -- for decades -- to have such rigid policies about anonymity in letters and stories only to completely disregard them online,” CEO Scott Lewis said in an e-mail.

•    My friend Connie Schultz, a columnist at the Cleveland Plain Dealer, tackled the problem of offensive commenting a different way.

Schultz conducts a discussion forum about her columns on Facebook, where users are identifiable. She says dozens of users, mostly women, have told her they feel safe commenting in this environment.
“I'm not saying we've figured out the model for newspapers. Facebook is a small, easily managed group compared to the public at large. But I do think we're on to something.” Schultz said in a column.

(The Plain Dealer recently identified an anonymous commenter. It reported that the e-mail address used to comment on a court item belongs to  a local judge. The judge said her adult daughter made the comments and sued the news organization.)

•    Windy Citizen in Chicago enables anonymous comments but users can vote comments up or down (as well as stories). Unpopular comments simply disappear, says site owner Brad Flora.

•    The Washington Post recently announced it will implement a two-tier system for comments.  Ombudsman Andrew Alexander, says news organizations need to find a middle ground.

"For every noxious comment, many more are astute and stimulating," Alexander wrote recently. "Anonymity provides necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard."

In the two-tier system, comments by people The Post deems “trusted” based on  following the site guidelines in the past, will be readily visible. It will take another click to see other comments.

I like this idea. I hope it works for the Post.

At the same time, I don’t think only one model will fit every site. In smaller online communities, where people are largely known to one another and are willing to be identified, banning anonymity may make sense.

On more heavily trafficked sites, it may be impossible to enforce the requirement for real names. A system like the Post proposes may be a better answer.

Requiring names doesn't solve a fundamental problem: Most news organizations and journalists are ill equipped, by attitude and staffing levels, to engage in online discussions, guide them constructively, and promote constructive commenting.  Active engagement, clear guidelines, and enabling users to report offensive comments are key.

How does your site handle comments? Do you allow anonymity? Are users required to register?

(Note: I did some of the reporting for this post on Twitter by soliciting views of my followers. I do not follow people whose real identities are not apparent.)