Since blogs were first created, they’ve been used, in some cases, anonymously. Blogs are not only easy to create — they are easy to create in such a way that the author remains completely anonymous. With anonymity, the thinking goes, someone can express opinions without fear of retribution or backlash in their personal life or in their career.

On the political side of the spectrum, one of the most heavily-trafficked blogs is run by Atrios, a Democratic activist with a huge following among supporters of that party. Not only do the blog’s comments draw literally hundreds and hundreds of active debaters, but it demonstrated some real fundraising prowess for candidates during the election.

For a very long time, Atrios was completely anonymous. It became a subject of real debate among bloggers, many of whom claimed that by refusing to reveal himself, Atrios was actually avoiding responsibility for the things that he says. Finally, last fall, Atrios revealed himself to be an economist named Duncan Black.

One of the options to consider in sponsoring or developing blogs is the option of anonymity. For example, you could have a member write an anonymous blog that allows him or her to post controversial opinions to provoke debate without fear of retribution.

The bigger question is: Should you?

I can’t really address this topic without pointing to the anonymous blog within our own midst, that sponsored by the Association Forum of Chicagoland and written by an anonymous association CEO, titled "View from a Corner Office."

I’m of two minds on this issue. First, I can see the value of gaining "real-world insight" from an association CEO’s standpoint, and understand how anonymity would allow that CEO to comment on internal issues with a much greater sense of freedom.

But second — is there a line to be drawn beyond which such anonymity stops being a shield and becomes an enabler? (I’m mixing metaphors. Sue me.)

Case in point: the Mystery CEO’s latest post offers some rather significant criticism of the CAE program, from both herself and a colleague who also remains anonymous. I’m not suggesting that this is not a debate worth having — I think it probably is a debate worth having. But I’m drawn to the same question political bloggers asked about Atrios: "Is the author using anonymity to escape responsibility for her comments?"

It’s one thing to post anonymously to talk freely about challenges (and solutions) faced within an organization and draw parallels for other people to learn from. I think that may be a commendable, if risky, goal (and I’m not saying it’s necessarily a good idea). But it’s another thing to use that same anonymity to provoke debates about serious issues facing the community as a whole without taking responsibility for your own opinions.

Am I wrong?

No comments yet.