> The main thing that folks are hiding behind is the fear of being wrong in hindsight.
I'm not so sure that's true.
I can think of many other reasons people might want or even need to participate anonymously (e.g. to protect their job, or their future employability, or their relationships with others in the industry to name just a few off the top of my head.)
Further, some of the most insightful comments seem highly likely to come from people with one or more of these privacy needs.
While I agree with you, I think there's a better solution to allowing these kinds of comments in than to open the floodgates and allow any number of people to post under any name they wish. The thought is noble, and as you point out, the potential is very rewarding in terms of insight.
That said I've seen pseudonyms used far, far more to disparage and to make cheap, hurtful points that can't be backed up. I don't think anybody thinks that what Techcrunch had before is the best we can do in commenting systems.
This. I'm not about to tattoo all the most controversial opinions I hold now or ever across my forehead, and it's not because I expect they're incorrect (though that would be reason enough). I have to negotiate for food and shelter with members of a nosy, judgmental, sometimes irrational species.
I'm not so sure that's true.
I can think of many other reasons people might want or even need to participate anonymously (e.g. to protect their job, or their future employability, or their relationships with others in the industry to name just a few off the top of my head.)
Further, some of the most insightful comments seem highly likely to come from people with one or more of these privacy needs.