This post was mentioned on Twitter by gfry: I have been wondering: Who are you, DarthMed? http://is.gd/7PZfU...

The issue at hand here is credibility. Whether someone is anonymous or not, each person should be citing sources to back up any claims made.

Sure, it’s nice to know who you’re speaking to, and what their motives may be. But it’s not necessary, because arguments should stand on their own intellectual and rational motives.

You learn in philosophy 101 and reasoning that there’s a reason there’s a set of logical fallacies, and that one of them is ad hominem attacks. An argument should be able to stand on its own, without knowing who’s making it. If it cannot, then the argument doesn’t have much of a foundation (and therefore, there’s little to fear).

“Although I am frequently annoyed by complaints that are posted anonymously, I respect the presumptively protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution right to anonymous speech. (See “Is anonymous speech a right?” – http://chillingeffects.org/johndoe/faq.cgi#QID18, The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.) Therefore I allow anonymous comments as long as they have, in my opinion, some intrinsic value.”

In Texas, no surprise, where the #1 rule often seems to be “those in power get to call whatever shots they want”…

My vision is a world where the priority is good care for people who need it.

There is yet another aspect of anonymity. Ever wonder why nurses are so quiet on health care debates? Did you know there is a ‘subculture’ of anonymous nurse blogs? Check out this NYT article.

Beyond these types of situations, I agree with Dave that the primary criteria for deciding how to deal with anonymous comments is to determine whether they are contributing to (or contaminating) the dialog.

We cannot control what happens, but we can choose how we respond to it. Sometimes that involves a shrug and walking away from the conversation.

If someone’s contributing, I don’t care whether they identify themselves. If someone’s not, or if they’re rude or seem to like destructive things like starting arguments, I don’t care whether they identify themselves.

Bottom line, I like it when conversations expand and move forward. [shrug...]

I believe you are mixing apples and oranges here. This is not an online community for people in need to communicate about a hard topic, one where society has built stigmatization. On the contrary, this blog is a pulpit where people make public pronouncements meant to be read publicly by an audience as wide as possible.

Just as I am a very strong proponent of full transparency in the peer-review process, with all names made public, so I am a strong proponent of full transparency in this public conversation. I am particularly interested to know the level of expertise of “DarthMed” about the topics he/she discusses. I know you have built PyschCentral, you know I have built ACOR. We have a frame of reference about what each one says and react accordingly. You know nothing about DarthMed and AFAIC (s)he could be just a troll.

Saying that 95% of people don’t care about self-help is not neutral. It’s either an exaggeration or a fact. I need to know which one it is.

I know from personal experience that if it weren’t for the option of anonymity online, hundreds — if not thousands — of people would not feel comfortable in sharing their own personal mental health conditions and experiences. Conditions like depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia that have long been stigmatized by others — and still are — can be embarrassing and difficult to talk about. There is still the sense that it is “my fault” for having it. Pseudonymity was one of the keys to opening up these conversations back in the early 1990s.

Perhaps that’s on purpose, as this country was founded on the ability for free people to speak their minds on important issues in an anonymous manner. The Internet — and its anonymity — is a valid extension of that freedom.

And it’s one we do not have any rules or prohibitions against on this blog.

I’m willing to tolerate the occasional anonymous comment, but the absolute worst behavior I have ever seen in blog post comments are from people who refuse to identify themselves.

I have not been following this particular person’s commentary, but from my past experience on The Health Care Blog, if bad behavior (non-constructive dialog) escalates, it is best to simply ignore that person. I’ve given anonymous people a chance, but there’s that one person in a million with whom it simply does not make sense to engage in dialog.

I ignore folks who are in it for the flame-bouency.

Yes, it generates an intense conversation but conversations about the healthcare system and the necessary changes to bring to the system must be based on well thought out and researched evidence or large number of anecdotal evidence points. I haven’t seen anything of that nature to support the varied DarthMed contentions.

For years one of Paul Levy’s best commenters has simply signed him/herself “nonlocal MD.” S/he is a well respected member of the community.

To me the issue is whether a person (a) is responsible and non-flaming, (b) is open and responsive to questioning, (c) contributes to the dialog rather than just messing things up and skedaddling.

I haven’t agreed with everything Darth has said but I think the conversation is much better for it. The comments have been provocative in a good way: thought-provoking.

Others?