Since posting my note criticizing unsigned campaign posters on Friday, I've gotten several thoughtful comments that I've been mulling over.
Several people agreed with me and several argued that there ARE times when anonymity is tolerable. And several pointed out my inconsistency is permitting some subscribers to The Walpolean to post comments without posting their full names.
When I started The Walpolen, my original position was to require full names in order to post a comment. As it is, I have all subscribers' user IDs--not necessarily their names--and their email addresses from which I can deduce many, but not all, real names.
When one gentleman started posting polical views a few weeks ago with only a first name, and I considered deleting his comments for that reason. But I did not because I thought his voice and views, many of which I part company with him on, were worth everyone's hearing, and I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that requiring his full name would deter him from making future comments.
I continue to think that responsible people state their views and attach their full names. That certainly makes me give them a more careful hearing, and knowing who they are gives us some assurance who they are speaking for. In addition, as one subscriber has pointed out, it can be very unfair for a person to be able criticize another subscriber by name while withholding his own name.
So...I am considering deleting future comments unless they are signed by the commenter with his or her full name. I wonder what our readers think about this issue and what long-term policy The Walplolean should follow on this issue?
I look forward to your thoughts.
Chuck Bingaman
