That Salon article is confusing "anonymous" with "pseudonymous", which are two completely different things.

More to the point, I'll quote Nick Confessore on this:

Anonymous writing can indeed be poisonous, because it frees the writer from any consequences whatsoever for his ideas. Over the course of time, a person writing anonymously -- whether as a commenter on someone's blog, or putting signs up on the office billboard -- can attack others without reprecussion; they can switch their viewpoints 180 degrees without looking inconsistent; they can make mistakes or introduce deliberate falsehoods and face no pressure to fix them.

Blogging continuously under a pseudonym, however, is a very different matter. Someone like Atrios or TMFTML has an intellectual identity and a reputation to defend. (So do those who blog for reputable magazines under a pseudonymn, as various people used to do here at Tapped and over at &tc., and still do at TomPaine.com's Take On The News.) It may not be connected to who they are in daily life, and perhaps we rightly take more seriously those who choose to write under their own name. But a pseudonymous blogger is accountable in the marketplace of ideas. When someone like Atrios is inconsistent or makes an error, he faces pressure to account for it -- and if he doesn't, he'll rightly lose credibility with his audience and with other bloggers. If he makes enough mistakes, people will (or should) stop taking him seriously, and eventually stop reading him. If they don't stop taking him seriously, shame on the readers.

And the salon article is unsigned. Lame. Anonymous bloggers are lame. Oh wait.

I have to say, even though I'm a frequent reader of a certain Knoxville anonymous blogger, this is a pretty funny post.

Of course, I thought the last one was funny, too, so what do I know...

I wrote about anonymous and pseudonymous writing, and I think both forms (as well as eponymous, obviously) have value in certain circumstances.

I've said before in another forum that another reason for remaining anonymous (or pseudonmyous) is to protect your family from those who might radically or violently wish to make their "opinions" known. I have two small children, and thus do not add my last name to my blog or comments. I don't think this puts me in the same league as, well, He Who Must Not Be Named, but I don't know - do you think so?

I know regular newspaper columnists and radio hosts take that risk - everyone knows who Maureen Dowd or Cal Thomas or Rush Limbaugh or Molly Ivins are. If they have young families (and I'm sure some of them probably do) they're putting them at an inherent risk by being politically controversial. But they've accepted that risk (not to mention getting compensated for that risk). I don't, and don't wish to.

I don't think my credibility is undermined, though.

Hmm, here's the link to my post on anonymous and pseudonymous writing. Did I mess it up last time?

http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/001278.php

Apparently no. Bill, do you not allow links in your comments?

I allow links, I think. Or it's set to turn an http:// address into a link. Which is better?

Also, the issue of anonymity/pseudonymity is deeper than a blogger's first and last name. It has to do with identity, as in the résumé questions and one's portfolio of experience and work product. My credibility derives not my name but on my decade of experience as a journalist, and my sizeable online portfolio of work. Michael Williams' credibility exists not because we know he is called 'Michael Williams' but because we know something about him on which to judge whether or not to put any stock into what he writes. Ditto Donald Sensing, Glenn Reynolds, Josh Marshall (yes, a lib!) Darren Kaplan, Dean Esmay, Hugh Hewitt, Roger L. Simon, Michael J. Totten (another lib!), Pejman Yousefzadeh, Steven Antler, Jeff Cornwall, etc...

At least that's the way I see it. And it's why I check, and link to, blogs by known bloggers much more than I do blogs by anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers.

Correction. Apparently us daily pass guys get a different version than regular subscribers.

I am told the article is signed by Christopher Farah .

Okay,MW, now you can use HTML in your comments. I switched it.

One should understand the genesis of this blogging brouhaha.

NRO's The Corner encouraged its readers to anonymously email negative anecdotes about the Democrat candidates. The Corner then published these emails without any authentication or verification.

Bill,

I still think pseudonymous writing as a noble history, including works such as The Federalist Papers. Although I do agree that writers who use their real identities are generally taken more seriously (and rightly so). That's why I decided to do so.

Wow... so the Corner, which Eschaton pre-dates by 6 months, is the "genesis" of the anonyblogger phenomenon?

Suggest you read subject Salon article, HH. The retractions, as well.

Bill -

Do I detect the odor of arrogance seeping through? I envision you saying, "They're anonymous, but I'm not and I'm better than all of them" while looking down your nose on those "other" bloggers.

Is there no other tool you can use to improve the reputation of your work? Surely the greater pursuit of solid facts and reasoned logic would be a nobler goal.

I like your blog, though I disagree with much of what you say. And this self back-slapping seems to me to be a waste.

I don't see it as self-back-slapping to state why I chose to be not anonymous. I simply stated my opinion of anon-blogging's credibility problem, and my intention to link less to anonymous blogs.

Sorry Bill, but you did a little more than that. You said:

"An anonymous blogger might tell you he can't blog because his employer might not like it, or his customers - so just trust him that he is who he says he is. Hogwash. He just wants the freedom to behave badly, slander with impunity, and spread lies."

That's a seriously harsh indictment of a very large group of people based on the bad behaviour of a few. I'm surprised and disappointed to read something like this coming from you.

Bill, thank you very much for the kind words! Much appreciated!

I started blogging pseuodonymously, as "Gunner20," back in March 2002. That blog, "Gunner 20's Blog Carnival," and the pseudonym, only lasted a few weeks. I became very uncomfortable using a ps'nym because it inhibited me from posting my bona fides. I felt that to be credible I needed to use my own name and explain where I got the education and experience to speak to certain issues with at least some measure of authority.

I don't think it was coincidental that my readership, and citations on other blogs, began increasing significantly after I began using my own name.

Dave, that was directed specifically at one anonoblogger, and when he reads it he'll know it was directed at him.

Samuel Clemens.

Bill, I distincly recall revealing my identity to you privately in e-mail. A fact which I now seriously regret. I have no doubt that you will use this against me at some point. That would be in line with the "journalistic ethics" you have displayed in the past. I should have learned the first time I got burned by a "journalist" such as yourself.

P.S. I note that you condem "anonymous" bloggers for allowing "cretinous behavior" in their comments. I assume you are referring to behavior other than yours. But I also note that you do not acknowledged that twice someone posing as you posted outrageous comments on my blog trying to attribute them to you, and in both cases I deleted them promptly and posted notice that they weren't you and that it wouldn't be tolerated. Whatever.

SKB, Worry not - I have never ever revealed the name of a source or broken a confidence and never will. Besides, quite frankly, I do not recall your identity nor have I kept any record of that email. That was a long time ago and that PC, my old laptop, crashed and the hardrive attempted to be reformatted and the machine will not even boot up. You have zero cause for paranoia.

Er. But I could be working secretly for Halliburton, in which case you're screwed. ;-)

SKB, Worry not - I have never ever revealed the name of a source or broken a confidence and never will. Besides, quite frankly, I do not recall your identity nor have I kept any record of that email. That was a long time ago and that PC, my old laptop, crashed and the hardrive attempted to be reformatted and the machine will not even boot up. You have zero cause for paranoia.

Er. But I could be working secretly for Halliburton, in which case you're screwed. ;-)