A brush with anonymity

Jonathan Weber, one of Tech & Net's regular columnists, writes from the United States about a recent furore. A Los Angeles Times journalist, Michael Hiltzik, used psedonyms to post on his blog and others, praising his own work and rubbishing his critics. The duplicity was uncovered when an arch-rival noticed that pseudonymous postings were coming from the same IP address as those bearing Mr Hiltzik's name.

The case highlights one of the many lurking dangers that await traditional newspapers trying to incorporate the energy of the web into their coverage. The Los Angeles Times has already had a brush with the dangers posed by anonymity: last year it was forced to abandon open reader forums after repeated attempts to post pornography on its site. The BBC was forced to close a cricket-related forum after rivalry between India and Pakistan supporters spilled over into racist abuse.

Blatant abuse is relatively easy to eliminate, at least on moderated forums such as those that appear on Times Online, but verifying the identity of commenters is virtually impossible. Usually that doesn't matter. In most cases, the value and validity of a comment does not depend on who sent it, but occasionally we receive posts from people who claim to have some connection with a story published on the website. Sometimes their identity can be verified with a phone call, but sometimes it can't, and sadly a lot of interesting posts are left unpublished because we can't be sure about their origin.

It would be even harder to spot that someone known to Times Online was posing as a disinterested reader. Our software does allow us to see the IP address from which a comment was sent, but unless our suspicions had been aroused it is unlikely that we would examine the records for incriminating patterns. If we did, even a half-hearted hoaxer could avoid detection by going to an internet cafe.

Contrary to public opinion, newspapers do value their integrity and no editor wants to compromise the reputation of his or her publication. The web, and blogging in particular, offer tremendous potential for reporters to join forces with readers to create new forms of journalism, but the medium is young and there's bound to be more trouble before it matures.

· Interestingly, and slightly alarmingly, moderating a blog or forum introduces risks of its own. By reviewing comments, Times Online editors take responsibility for their content and become liable for any resulting legal action. Since many readers are blissfully unaware of the niceties of British libel law, this tends to keep us on our toes.

How can we trust what we read on blogs? Should comments on this blog be moderated? Send your views using the form below, if possible without committing libel

Comments

[Alan]

One of the reasons blogs are so popular is because they encourage free speech, both by the author and those who comment.

However, people do abuse the comments sections of blogs. As a result, they must be moderated.

A clear set of terms about the use of the comments section is advisable.

[Daniel]

It is funny that in a society that holds free speech in such high regard we fail to notice the voluminous amounts of idiotic dribble it creates.
If we are going to have free speech then we need to endure the absurd with an open mind. Open mind... Sometimes that seems like such an impossibility in our puritanical and considerably undereducated society.
Truly though, if we are an open and intelligent people then what effect do the ramblings of fools have upon us? Heck, even this old fool is allowed a little leeway sometimes.