I'm a couple days behind on this, but I wanted to follow on a follow to my earlier post about civility and anonymity in the blogosphere.

An excellent point here from an anonymous, but good, local blog, the unequivocal notion.

I'm kinda/sorta anonymous, a lot of people know who I am, but most don't. I don't take a lot of steps to protect it, but I don't advertise it either. I just don't think that who I am has that much bearing on what I write about -- that and death threats (yep, it has happened) really aren't that cool either. But there are a few bloggers in Idaho who require anonymity to write, that's just the nature of our state and what they write about. Do they deserve any less credibility? I don't think so. I think they bring insight into subjects that the rest of us don't have; they have credibility in my eyes because I choose to give it to them.

A novel idea would be placing credibility in what one writes not who they are. Actually, first off, think about why you give anyone credibility on the internet. One thing that is important to realize about about blogging or bloggers is that anyone can, and will do it. The same demographics of liars, thieves and bullies that exist in the real world also exist in this digital one. If there is one thing you can ever teach someone about the internet it is this; 'just because it is on the web, doesn't mean it is so.' That is Web 101.

Placing credibility in what someone writes isn't just a novel idea — it's a good idea.

I don't think unnamed bloggers and commenters automatically sacrifice credibility to the altar of credibility. Amidst the ranters and the trolls are people who raise smart questions and make reasoned arguments — and by choice or necessity, choose not to attach their name to them.

At the end of the day, this is how I justify using unnamed writers in print in our Other Voices feature. After 23 years in the news business, including seven as an editorial page editor, I think I have a reasonably good eye for the comments that enhance the debate. Yes, that means I'm distilling the dialogue for reprint. For good or ill, I'm giving print readers what I consider to be a good taste of the smartest of the online debate. If I've exposed readers to an interesting idea or two, that's good. If I've encouraged them to check out the online debate for themselves, so much the better.

So I think there is a place for the unnamed comments, the bloggers who choose to use their name — and us old-school journalists who are diving face-first into the fray. Yes, we should be judged by what we have to say.

Put another way, I want readers to judge my commentary and analysis on their merits. Did you learn something? Did I get you to think about the issues in another way — whether you agree with me or not? If I derive credibility solely from signing my name to a post, then I'm not providing much of a service.