It’s a dilemma many newspapers are faced with: Online comments on newspaper stories or blogs can sometimes get nasty, especially when comments are unmoderated and users can hide behind cryptic aliases. Do you let the community moderate itself (which has had some success at smaller-market newspapers), or do you heavily moderate the community?

The Sacramento Bee’s management has decided on a new tactic: Require real names (first and last), but moderate the comments less.

The decision to require real names has drawn praise and criticism – both of which are addressed in a note from Public Editor Armando Acuna. (As a side note, it is not yet clear how exactly the Bee will verify identities, and the comments to the ombud’s letter are still from users with creative but anonymous names.)

The idea is that when a commenter has to identify themselves, the commenter will think twice before publishing an inappropriate or rude comment. But many people told the public editor that requiring the commenter’s real name may prevent them from commenting at all for fear of backlash. (Or worse, someone could pose as someone else and post inappropriate or otherwise harmful comments.)

Does this remind anyone of the debate over using anonymous sources at any newspaper that does investigative journalism?

This is something we’ll all be watching in the months ahead.

Related links: 

This Will Become the Trend (Howard Owens)

Time to Get Tough: Managing Anonymous Reader Comments (Online Journalism Review)

WP: Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web (Digital Edge Blog)

Bloggers Code of Content Includes ‘No Anonymous Comments’ (Wikia)