If it is inevitable that web users bestow trust on articles which have the identities and sources indicated, and hence consider such material as possessing reliable information, then perhaps articles posted by “unknown sources” are much preferred. When the sources are unknown, web surfers would read them with apprehension and know to some extent, that the information may be flawed in some way. Hence, they would be disinclined towards treating such information as reliable.
However, anonymity breeds irresponsibility. The lack of commitment and accountability inherent in anonymity might encourage even more extensive instances of unreliable information and because the cost of publication is much reduced, there might be a proliferation of irresponsible reporting and information on the web. As such, anonymity, though initially appealing as a solution insofar as it causes apprehension and lack of trust in the web surfer for the information, is not a tenable solution.
The enormity of the problem necessitates perhaps, some regulatory action and writers have, again and again, suggested some kind of cyberpolicing where laws can be made to govern material in cyberspace. It is important here to make a distinction between policing the content of the material and the source of the material. While conducting checks on the content of the information posted on the web is not impossible, checks on the source is a rather different matter.
Consider the implications of cyberpolicing the sources of information material on the web. For every piece of information, no matter how trivial or insignificant, it would have to be passed through some censorship board. The board has to investigate and probe into the credentials and purposes with respect to the information the writer provides on the web. Is the writer in any position to post such an article? What are his qualifications? How is his research into the subject matter adequate and sufficiently comprehensive for him to post a contribution on the web? Are his intentions genuine? Is there anything in his article that might be interpreted as subversive and have negative consequences on web users?
These are merely examples of the implications of having regulatory practices for material on the web, and they are not exhaustive. Yet, it can already be seen that not only does such a strategy involve monumental efforts, it also seems impossible considering the time and manpower involved and the proliferation of articles on the web. To truly investigate the writer, the board has to practically know him in order to understand his assumptions, values, commitments, causes he supports etc. And after deciding and approving this particular contribution, the board goes through the same process all over again for another writer, another contribution.
Taken to the extreme, such a policing practice might even discourage contributions to the web and defeat the whole purpose of the web as an information resource. Judge Martin would find it hard convincing the censorship board to allow him to post an article on gardening even though he has an interest in it and has actively for the past ten years been reading up on it, because he is not academically qualified in that area. And how about those who value their privacy and who do not appreciate any intrusion into their personal or academic lives and yet wish to, for some altruistic purposes, post a thoroughly-researched paper on the web?