Professional ethics and blogs

If you want to blog about an idea or opinion that you think might be controversial, do you have a professional obligation to sign that post? This question came up recently among colleagues and generated an interesting discussion around issues of professionalism and ethics in the context of Web 2.0. As with all good discussions, this first question lead to others, such as: is it professionally irresponsible to post something unsigned? Are unsigned posts less credible? Are controversial posts are more interesting because they generate more debate? Is there a difference between posting anonymously or using a pseudonym?

In its Virtual World Guidelines , IBM reminds us that we should exercise good professional judgment and protect our own reputation as well as that of our employer when we engage in virtual environments, just as we should elsewhere. I would add that I think we have an obligation to disclose our affiliations when writing, or blogging, about issues related to our profession. Blogs allow us to share ideas and voice opinions in a public forum; they are a "democratizing technology", if such a thing exists given the digital divide. Posting to a blog can help you make connections with people and make a name for yourself. And while a public blog may not be an appropriate place for discussion or debate about institutional decisions and directions, it is a good place to spark discussion or get people thinking about new ideas. So what if you want to explore an idea you know might not be well received at your institution? What if you don't have tenure or a permanent position, or you are seeking employment? Should you keep quiet, post anonymously or post "diplomatically"?

We didn't come to any consensus, but I think we all took something away from the discussion. Your comments are welcome!