Agreed.
Hi, Andy. I understand completely. I used to be afraid of "retribution"...even though I try hard to be very balanced and inclusive in my comments. I, too, had to pluck up the courage to post under my own name (never had a handle, though - simply didn't post!).
I also understand why some folks still use a handle. I hope they come around and begin to use their real names, though - we're all a part of the Westborough community. We can squabble like siblings amongst ourselves, but someone from the outside picks on our town and we'll act as one!

Thank you for taking up this topic. While I'm reticent to engage in online discussions of this type, I feel that this is an important issue for the health of the Westborough Patch and our community.

I view the Westborough Patch as an extension of our real world community. I do not see it as some virtual reality where aliases and avatars are just part of that world. Rather I see the Patch as an important supplement, or actually more a replacement, for our local news, promoting a community awareness. The Patch is an expression of our community, its diversity and its values. It is an expression of ourselves.

For this reason, I feel that bloggers should have real, full bylines including their real full names, a short bio and a photo of themselves. When I signed up I was led to believe that this was required and thought it a good idea. (Believe me I wouldn't have hastily taken and posted that photo of myself if I hadn't needed it.)

For non-bloggers leaving comments, I still think that these should be posted under one's real full name. I do understand the freedom that an alias promotes. I also understand the civility and responsible behavior that using one's name promotes.

I encourage all who post to the Westborough Patch to please consider doing so using your real name.

Hi, everyone - as an editor with Patch who has addressed this issue numerous times, I'd like to weigh in. I'm copying an email that I recently sent to a reader who questioned the practice of readers using fake names..

Patch does have a policy that asks people to provide their real names. That said, we enforce it as police enforce speeding laws. Many drivers, if not all drivers, speed and the cops selectively choose who gets tickets. Generally, it's the most egregious offenders. Sometimes, people get a warning. That's what we do at Patch. If we enforced 100 percent posting full names, we'd be spending more time deleting comments and emailing users than we would providing material for the site and building relationships with the community, which are our primary goals. Take the case of the mom, who, proud that her son has won a school award, comments "Great job, Billy," under the name "ProudMom." Or the resident who weighs in on an innocuous issue under the moniker, "Concerned Resident." We want people to feel comfortable to comment on Patch, regardless of whether we agree with their opinions. If a commenter becomes a problem (in this instance, we'll define "problem" as violating our acceptable terms, which include no name-calling, personal attacks, etc.) we will deal with that user, either through deleting comments or, in the worst case, account suspension, which we don't take lightly. (more in next comment)

(continued)
Furthermore, if we do start strictly enforcing the full name policy, it is almost impossible to prove that the full name someone uses is, in fact, that person's real name. Many of our commenters use full names that at face value, someone won't question because it sounds legitimate.

I understand concern about "anonymous" readers "cyber-sniping," and I encourage you to flag comments that include name-calling and personal attacks. Often these comments take care of themselves as a certain number of reader "flags" remove the comments automatically. We do work, though, not to censor people's opinions when reasonably expressed.

Whereas the First Amendment does guarantee free speech, it does not not guarantee that there won't be consequences to that speech. Although I agree mostly with the notion that all those that post comments should be giving their full name, there are times and circumstances where opinions should be allowed to voiced anonymously. Otherwise those opinions might not be heard. So, I think the Patch should encourage the identification of the comment authors, but not make it a requirement.
The Constitution does not guarantee us a job. And so some may have their "livelihood" at stake if their opinions do not necessarily conform to her/his employer's ideals. Like it or not, we now live in a world where employers check out potential employees on-line before hired.
Furthermore, there is something to be said for anonymous opinions. The Country's founding fathers created elections by secret ballot. Should we all now be required to list our ballot selections alongside our names in the town register every year? Secret/anonymous opinion needs to be part of our community. Look at the voting results from open forum town meeting for the fire station versus from the secret ballot vote. The discrepancy was likely due to those that were against spending the money, but did not want to be publicly known for going against the most important life safety agency of the town.

One of the reasons why there is growing opinion that posters should use their real names is that the current system is being abused easily by trolls and by posters who have stopped using their real names and are taking on aliases which allow them to say things which can be pretty inflammatory and they would not have said had they continued to use their original names. I posted to the Wall Street Journal for many years, and there it was and I believe is required that one use his or her name. One one occasion I got some pretty nasty phone calls, but I figured that went with the territory. Of course, we all agree it is a sad time when employers go mining on the internet to check up on employees or potential ones and so I am sympathetic with First Amendment's comments as a matter of principle. As a matter of practice I think editors themselves should do what editors often do: shut down discussions when ranting takes over, shut out posters who regularly troll (and are not registered locally), and ask those who start threads to use their real names and photos unless the subject is so sensitive they can ask for an exception. What I know now is that many readers are tired of the endless attacks, nameless people who could be anywhere in the US, and the inability to have civil discourse about issues of local importance. We do have to remember, too, that posting on the Patch is posting on a bulletin board owned by a huge corporation which itself has regulations to discourage aliases.

Bob-

You are missing the point of my post - all I am saying is that the Westborough Patch is a community web site (even if it is owned by a corporation and contains advertisiing) and I do not see a problem with members of the community letting each other know who they are. My experience is that letting people know who I am has had no adverse effects on me. Certainly, I am not talking about controlling what people say.

Mr. Bob, I don't think we want to get into a contest about who is 'naive' here. You will note that several of us who are raising questions have been providing what we hope are very positive blogs on a variety of subjects -- nature, conservation, political opinion and much more. We do not want to see this wonderful resource reduced to a Google click and profit operation that benefits from a high quantity of junk mail. I would suggest you read AOL's registration rules before you say this large company does not care about someone's real name. Patch is in trouble nationally. Editors are leaving, bloggers are quitting, finances are iffy. Going into the gutter will not save it or attract the advertising revenue it needs. Too much of American industry is cheap click and damn the quality full steam ahead. Some of us would like to avoid that here. Perhaps you have some positive ideas????? Your employer won't know who you are if we were to call you naive :-)

Lots of research shows that humans like to follow the crowd. Watching the work of our congress demonstrates that there are penalties expected if one votes with the other group on an issue. Why would there be so many party line votes if our representitives felt free to vote their conscience? Don't tell me that mob psychology is not at work! Saying this, however, the right thing to do is identify yourself and stand up for your opinion. If our legislators did this perhaps we would not have the mess we have!

Amazing Jim, I agree with about all you say here. You are among the quality bloggers who deserves respect for the effort you put in. I think we all want the kind of discourse you want. Have a good Fourth, and remember that regardless of views we are all Americans trying to be good citizens! Even the President.

When I reviewed JPs and gave it a Red Light, I took a bunch of negative criticism - all public and all in writing. Conversely those agreeing with me took me aside on the street, or sent me a text message (one made me laugh...suggesting I "outed" the place.) I "get" why some people choose to be anonymous, and my preference would be for people to feel comfortable and "safe" enough to use their real names.

On the eve of the 4th of July, I have to admit I've always admired the "John Hancock" on the Declaration of Independence. He made a statement for all to see! What would he have used as an avatar in signing the document!

Have a great holiday, all!

I goofed! Jim, you are right ... I thought my email address would identify me. THEN, when I tried to get back in, the site wouldn't accept my log in! ... Said my address had allready been taken. So, sorry ... The Don above is Don Tepper of Westborough. Give me time and I will figure this thing out ... Hopefully before I run out of opinions!

Anonymity provides the opportunity to focus on the content and not the author. It has nothing to do with fear of retribution. It's a time honored tradition intended to advance the topic and not the individual.

There are also plenty of examples where people have attacked other posters and used their real names. The Declaration of Independence is not a forum for an opinion but a documented commitment. The fact that Dominic takes such exception to this supports the argument that it's really less about the subject and more about the individual. You should consider the opinion and worry less about who is presenting it. The idea that you might be more inclined to accept or reject based on who the person is really takes away from the intent of the discussion.

A blog is an exchange of ideas, it doesn't change anything material besides an individual desire to become more or less involved in the topic.

This is turning into a really great discussion.

These are not complicated arguments on the blog, You either agree or disagree. If you agree/disagree with a statement because it comes from Andy or Jim then you never really consider the content and form your opinions based on your relationship or lack of with people. You should be capable of making a choice without knowledge of who is presenting it. The scary thing is you might discover you agree with people you think you disagree with. Bit like a blind taste test.

Here is an excellent perspective on how on-line publications are dealing with anonymous commenting, and unmoderated blabbing that can go on almost endlessly, as some recent discussions here seem to. It reviews academic research and a clear trend to require real world identities. A key paragraph notes that:

"In general...it’s become clear that the old model of anonymous free-for-all commenting is on its way out. News sites both large and small are requiring online commenters to post an identity, often by connecting them to a Facebook profile."

I think this very encouraging. More and more publications are making serious efforts to apply reasonable community standards. See

Most Comments Are Horrible—Sites Look for Ways to Make Them Better
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/16/most-comments-are-horrible-sites-look-for-ways-to-make-them-better.html

Given the general written standards of AOL-PATCH we can hope that there is movement in these positive directions here, and that the company gives its editors the tools and resources to implement changes.