"Digg"ing in at the Daily Herald

Proving once again my mind is filled with brilliant ideas that I will most likely never produce, the Daily Herald uses a unique reader comment feature, which I've always thought would be a fantastic addition to news sites.

Like Digg and Windy Citizen, the Daily Herald allows readers to up-vote or down-vote reader comments. If enough people down-vote a comment, it disappears from from view, though you can read it by clicking a links that says "show".

It's a good way to eliminate (or attempt to, at least) the drivel that populates so many reader comment boards. On the other hand, it can stifle the true nature of the conversations that take place there.

I wonder how many news sites have similar features. I think it's a smart move.

Anonymous reader comments hurt democracy

There's been a battle about the use of anonymous reader comments. How can a newspaper, which values transparency above all else, advocate readers masking who they are? These comment board discussions often devolve into name-calling and other unintelligent discourse. It's pretty reasonable to think that discussions would be more high-minded if users were required to provide their real names. We're all responsible for what we say, but not if you use a pseudonym.

I did some research on this in the fall, and concluded that anonymous reader comments hurt freedom of speech and democracy, by subjecting sources to intimidation and ridicule. Sources can be unwilling to go on the record, thus limiting the press' ability to hold others accountable. It's probably more prevalent on a local level.

This is something Doug Fisher will address at a journalism conference this summer in Chicago.

I wonder what others out there think about this? How harmful are anonymous comments?