A central dilemma in legacy media's efforts in digital journalism is how to deal with differing cultures of the platforms. Paid versus free, for instance. One-to-many versus many-to-many.

And transparent versus anonymous. The ability for people to shield their identities in posting and commenting online poses a challenge for many media organizations steeped on the discipline of verification and the discretion of concealment.

The Daily Telegraph's Paul Carr, always a thoughtful writer, weighs in with a blog/essay that outlines many of the core issues in the debate still coursing through newsrooms of what to do about the anonymous.

Is anonymity an abuse of privilege or a basic right of privacy? From what I can tell, few newsrooms have settled the matter and left an incongruence in their operations. Namely, letter-writers are identified and checked and commenters could be anyone.

It seems, as Carr suggests, that the time has come for a greater focus on this issue --- not to curtail the liveliness of the Internet but to strengthen its credibility. Indeed, Carr believes that recommendation algorithms are needed to help the situation --- trust-building gauges of our reputations and records as contributors, in essence.

What do you think? Comments welcome, particularly from those who will stand and be counted.