Ok that’s a bit off topic
If you want to be anonymous, professionally anonymous then you should read into the tool Cloakfish.

I am a blogger myself, I actually do this for a living (blogging, keeping myself updated) and this tool is like sent from god

It is the integrity question that makes me hold the anonymous opinion with a greater bit of salt than others. The premise (for me) is this. If we were to find each other at a conference, I would expect that we could continue this debate in person, perhaps even if it got nasty. It was because Jenny Levine puts her name on her opinions, I could go up to her at the OLA superconference and say “by the way, I disagree with you on copyright.”

For the anonymous person I cannot do that and there is a bit of hypocricy in that for me. It makes me think that the anonymous person might not be willing to stand up for his/her opinions in the real world. That reads a possible “this person is just shooting off at the mouth” to me.

Of course there are places where anonymity is the only way out of a situation, such as the case of a person living in an oppressive regime. But in those cases, people have to stoop to alot of things, anonymous criticism probably being the least of these.

So, while I believe anonymity should be possible in a free society, I still contend that it is better, more ethical, more impressive to refuse to use it.

Anonymity and pseudonymity are forms of power, as they help someone hide their identity and do things that they would not do under their real names. It makes me think of the iconic quote from Spiderman (“With great power comes great responsibility.”), as well as the cliched question one might have whenever they obtain such powers: “Do I use it for good, or do I use it for evil?” Of course, superheroes like Spiderman and Batman (and numerous others) do not perform their deeds as Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne. They take on personae that allow them to get on with their normal lives of brooding and existential angst, and to avoid the pitfalls of celebrity.

Thinking about the real world, would we think any less of someone who speaks out or acts anonymously against a repressive regime in their own country? If they’re caught, they end up imprisoned (at the very least), physically abused, or even dead. As much as we may admire martyrs, how can one continue a good fight if they’re no longer around? Better to remain anonymous and keep dictators and their minions guessing than to get caught and reduce the ranks of dissenters.

AL may not have to contend with eccentric criminals or tyrants, but she might have to worry about her professional standing if someone ends up “outing” her. Considering that John Berry used his blog within Library Journal to engage in an ad hominem attack against her, I don’t blame her for retaining her anonymity. Granted, she does get in some “snarky” comments, but many of her postings have enough substance to raise substantial questions within our profession. It’s too bad that she has to remain anonymous, but we at least have an opportunity to engage her thoughts… if we can see past the stigma of anonymity/pseudonymity.

Of course, personal attacks have no place in civil and collegial debate. I agree with Ryan on that point, but it shouldn’t matter if the person is anonymous or not. At least among civilized people, someone who attacks their opponent (rather than their opponent’s argument) automatically loses face in the argument.

I think that Ryan and I will need to “agree to disagree” on the validity of anonymous/pseudonymous posts. Personally, I feel compelled to respond to the good ones (if time allows), and steer clear of the nasty ones (even if someone attaches their real name to them).

Sure there are sites where the flame/troll etc. ratio is way up there and everyone is anonymous and everyone makes their brave comments on the misguided posts about, well tripe. But no one considers this sort of thing true debate — it’s more just fun, or brow-beating depending on one’s mood. It’s pretty much fine in my view — like going to a costume party or something.

On the other hand, I really hate being attacked or flamed by an anonymous person when I am using my real name in the discussion. It automatically shuns my attention to be frank. No matter the eloquence of an opinion, I can’t really credit someone with integrity if they say something nasty to me under a pseudonym that I do not believe would be said to my face with any level of sincerity. In that vein, although AL has never said anything about me personally, I wouldn’t really care much if she did. Basically, I assume her annoyedness is enabled by her pseudonym.