Updated: I enjoy a good debate about media-related topics pretty much any time, even when I’m supposed to be on vacation with the family in Florida. Today, in between playing shuffleboard and bocce and taking the kids to the swimming pool, I had a rousing back-and-forth on Twitter with Howard Owens — who was formerly with Gatehouse Media and is now running a local news site called The Batavian — about the evils (Howard) and virtues (me) of anonymous comments. Along the way, we sucked Steve Yelvington and others into the fray as well. Did we settle the issue? Not even close. In fact, I’m not sure it can ever be settled to everyone’s satisfaction.

In a nutshell, Howard said that anonymous comments were an abomination (I’m paraphrasing somewhat) and were in fact unethical, since commenters on a news site had a “fundamental right” to know the identity of the other people commenting. I tried to make a number of points, including the fact that anonymity is a red herring, and that the more important thing in encouraging a strong and healthy community conversation is standards of behaviour, regardless of anonymity. I also tried to make the point that anonymity has its benefits, and that many people — some of whom might have valuable contributions to make — would never comment if they had to use real names (Howard made the point that allowing anonymity excludes other people).

Howard noted that his beliefs about anonymous comments come from “a vast body” of real-world experience, not just theories and supposition. While I may not have a vast body of experience, I spent several years dealing with comments at the Globe and Mail, where we routinely got 7,000 or more comments every day — and for the past year or so I was in charge of moderating those comments, so anonymity is something I not only have seen the downside of, but feel pretty strongly about (hence the debate). And I surveyed our readers about it extensively, so I know how many of them feel as well — in fact, I wrote a whole blog post about exactly that topic in 2008.

After I took the job as online Communities Editor, the first thing people said to me was “You have to fix the comments — they’re terrible.” And the second thing they said was: “We should make people use their real names. That would solve everything.” The first of those observations was arguably true, since the Globe and Mail comments were in many cases terrible. But the second observation was not even close to being true, or at least I didn’t think so. For one thing, I knew that there were some online communities that allowed anonymous comments and yet had pretty healthy comment boards, including Metafilter (one of my favourites) and Slashdot. (I’m not the only one to defend anonymous comments — a former executive editor of WashingtonPost.com did so as well, despite his earlier dislike of them).

The other thing I knew was that it is virtually impossible to actually verify someone’s identity online, unless you ask them for their social insurance (or social security) number, or their credit-card number. And while I have no empirical evidence to prove it, I have a pretty strong feeling that this would dramatically reduce the number of people who would be willing to comment (as would charging for the right to comment, which someone on Twitter suggested as a solution). And I believe that one of the principles of running a media site is that you should open up interaction to as many people as possible. Not that you don’t moderate offensive comments — far from it. In fact, I think moderation and engagement (as Steve Yelvington notes in this post) can make up for a lot of what Howard sees as the downsides of anonymity (a point Jim Lippard also made).

When I’m asked about comments, I often say that to me, comments and the ability to interact through them are like democracy. Most people support democracy and its various principles, even though in practice it is frequently ugly and brutal and betrays some of the worst elements of humanity for everyone to see (Winston Churchill said that democracy was the worst possible form of government, except for all the others). So it is with comments. And just as anonymity has a broader purpose in a democratic society — whistleblowing, for example (a point Topix CEO Chris Tolles made), and keeping a check on arbitrary authority — I think it has a purpose in comments and online communities as well.

As I mentioned during our debate, I think that persistent (and quasi-verified) identity agents like Facebook Connect and OpenID can help with some of the problems that online comments have — not necessarily “real” identity so much as persistent identity. It’s not really important that I know who Shelley456 is when she comments, but if she is Shelley456 everywhere she comments, then she has devoted some time (theoretically) to establishing that identity, and therefore will be less likely to destroy it by spewing Nazi hate in some online comment board. Sites that take advantage of persistent identity can become a little like World of Warcraft, allowing people to “level up” through good behaviour, relying on the fact that they won’t behave badly because they have devoted so much time to their virtual identities.

In any case, as I noted on Twitter, I didn’t pick on Howard because I wanted to start a fight over comments — I got into the debate because I think it’s an important issue and because it needs to be thought about and talked about if we are to get it right (and I’m willing to admit that what is right for Howard on his community news site is not what might be right for another news site or entity). Thanks to everyone who took part.

Update: John Bracken of the MacArthur Foundation wrote a post about this discussion, and so did Steve Buttry — who is director of community engagement for the new hyper-local Washington news site that Jim Brady is setting up for Allbritton Communications, and therefore is pretty interested in different approaches to reader comments. Steve’s post is here.

John Temple also said he is interested in the discussion — John is the former editor of the Rocky Mountain News and is now with Pierre Omidyar’s new Peer News startup, and his recent comments about comments started me thinking again about anonymity and how it is a red herring in online community. As Chris Garrett noted in the context of another discussion about online community, “pseudonym does not mean fake.” Jack Lail also has a post with a collection of links he has been putting together about online news site comments.

About the author

Mathew 2429 posts

I'm a Toronto-based senior writer with Fortune magazine, and my favorite things to write about are social technology, media and the evolution of online behavior

178 Responses to “Anonymous Comments: Are They Good or Evil?”
  1. I think anonymity encourages a culture of meanness and trolling.

  2. This newspaper letter writer got into hot water after praising a politician. She hid her identity, hiding that she worked for this politician she praised. But ultimately…her comments were her identity signature…she got confronted and caught.


  3. […] is a chance to see, interact and recognize with readers. So often we have debates about anonymous vs. anonymous comments and the problems with getting readers and viewers to participate without the situation devolving […]

  4. Twitter Comment

    RT @wjchat: Comments + anonymity Wed 5PM PDT. Read up & discuss w/us http://nyti.ms/ahehWp http://bit.ly/9YEj5K [link to post] #wjchat

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  5. Twitter Comment

    Today we’re thinking abt comments + anonymity. Read up & discuss with us Wed http://nyti.ms/ahehWp http://bit.ly/9YEj5K [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  6. Excellent analysis and thoughtful positioning. Thanks.

  7. I don't like anonymous comments, I want everyone to know my email: hawkins@kobelco-eagle.com

  8. […] Ingram, former communities editor of the Globe and Mail in Toronto,  is an effective advocate for allowing commenters to be anonymous. But several news organizations are trying alternatives as […]

  9. […] the Washington Post’s Doug Feaver and Andrew Alexander, or former Globe & Mail staffer Mathew Ingram, and say the kooks and morons deserve to have their voices heard. Just maybe not as loudly as they […]

  10. […] Anonymous Comments: Are they Good or Evil?, Matthew Ingram, GigaOm […]

  11. […] reason for crappy comments? I’m not the first to ponder this topic, nor will I be the last. Mathew Ingram posted a few months back on the anonymous comments debate and includes several links to various points of view. When I’m […]

  12. […] Anonymous Comments: Are they Good or Evil?, Matthew Ingram, GigaOm […]

  13. […] Anonymous Comments: Are They Good or Evil? […]

  14. Every time I read a good article, I usually do three things:
    1. Share it with my close friends.
    2. Bookmark it in all my favorite social bookmarking sites.
    3. Be sure to visit the same website where I first read the article.
    After reading this article, I am really thinking of going ahead and doing all three of the above!

  15. Twitter Comment

    @sproudfoot @edbott [link to post] I wonder if that’s his persistent identity? ;) (link is matthew ingram post on this)

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  16. Twitter Comment

    Anonymous Comments: Are They Good or Evil?
    [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  17. Twitter Comment

    @DanGoodchild @gameandpc @jeffjedras [link to post] //good points

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  18. Twitter Comment

    @ydb (la suite) entre autres, ceci, rédigé par @mathewi, avait retenu mon attention [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

Comments are closed.