There are lots of reasons to enjoy anonymity on a blog site. In some cases, posters are free to share information that otherwise might jeapardize careers (such as political commentary or military information that comes from "insiders") and in many ways it enables a person to be "more free" than they otherwise might be.
Pseudo-identities also allow for expression that is more loose and less socially constrained.
Where are we headed with this?
The New York Times, for example, is making a concerted effort to identify sources and if not identifiable, then to explain the reason for non-attribution.
In climates where information is tightly controlled, such as the Bush administration or corporations, for example, off-the-record comments by officials or employees can potentially put a reporter in legal jeapardy if they refuse to disclose their "sources" or the "information discloser" can get in trouble as a whistle-blower.
Anonymous posting on the blog sites can provide a forum for information to be revealed that is non-attributable. Of course, this can also mean a lot of false or misleading information, too. (This is not to get into a discussion of NSA spying).
A recent online session held by the Washington Poston how mainstream media is entering in the conversation, covering blog interactivity, ethics and reader comments addressed the subject of anonymous posters among other issues. This panel included such new media bigwigs such as Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen and Glenn Reynolds.
So what do you think? Is anonymity on the web a good thing or a bad thing? Does it inspire trust, inhibit the free-flow of information or what? Do you think that anonymity will increase or decrease as this medium develops? Let the discussion begin!
Laissez Les Bon Temps Blog On!