- LISWire: EBSCO Publishing Wins Silver in Best in Biz Awards 2012 EMEA
- LISWire: Australian Public Library Chooses Koha
- LISWire: Gale and Wolper Information Services Partner to Enhance Distribution of Electronic and Print Resources to Libraries
- LISWire: EBSCO Publishing Releases Two New Digital Archive Databases from Collections at the New-York Historical Society
- LISWire: Equinox Software Announces Sponsorship for Literary Lions Gala


Comments
use "anonymity responsibly"... ha!
so you can only be anonymous if you don't do anything bad... not even illegal, just irresponsible... but yet, use your real name (or a "persistent pseudonym") and responsibility goes out the window (!).
It's a little odd really
If you're not actually defaming someone or accusing them of something illegeal then what does it matter what you say? The police chief example in the article, if someone had shouted out at him during some hustings would he have rushed over to get his name?
If someone said, Chief x is dealing drugs and having an affair with the Major' you might have a point, but then if that person was a journalist they'd have legal protection anyway. Theres no need to expose people.
I also disagree with the idea that the quality of information gets better if you know who someone is. I get what they mean but when someone builds up a reputation through their actions and is known by a forum name, it's just as, if not more evidence of the quality of their knowledge. Doesn't matter if they are Norman from NY or Willy from Washington. If they are consistantly givcing good information, helping the online community etc, you'll trust them more than other 'official' news and advice outlets. That's a matter of evidence, not perception.