Online comments: Uncensored, unfiltered, untied

Not long ago, someone sent me a copy of "John Gabriel's Greater Internet (Expletive) Theory," which goes like this:

"Normal person+Anonymity +Audience=Total (Expletive)."

Anyone who read the online reader comments to Friday's story — with photo — about Seattle street-maintenance director Paul Jackson Jr. knows what Gabriel was talking about.

"Look at those chins!" one reader posted on seattletimes.com. "Is he the McCheese's son?" (I'm assuming "McCheese" means Mayor Greg Nickels. Ouch.)

"He does not have the motivation to take care of his own body and health," wrote day2day of Jackson, "so you know he is not going to be a motivated and quick worker/manager."

And then there was SiCofGovernmenTnCensorY, who stated simply, "Oink oink!"

All of these comments were given a "thumbs up" by a majority of readers. In other words, they like it. They want it to continue.

The leadership at this paper is struggling with how to do that while maintaining some measure of intelligent debate and human decency.

Do we let commenters rip in this, a free country? Or monitor them by the minute, and clean up the trash as soon as it hits the site? And who decides what is trash, anyway?

Last month, former Washington Post executive editor Doug Feaver wrote a blog post defending "the anonymous, unmoderated, often appallingly inaccurate, sometimes profane, frequently off-point and occasionally racist reader comments" on that newspaper's site.

It was a big change, because Feaver, like many editors, has worked to maintain standards, while still giving readers a forum to vent.

Commenting allows readers to complain about what they see as unfairness or inaccuracy in news stories; to talk to each other, "And, yes," Feaver wrote, "to bloviate."

I agree. Our anonymous comments are some of the best windows into what Seattle wishes it could say but doesn't. They're the Northwest version of anger management.

We're so passive, so kumbaya so much of the time that we never say what we're really thinking, except maybe when A-Rod returns to Safeco and steps up to the plate. Then, we toss Monopoly money and join the chorus of boos.

There's safety in numbers when it comes to being awful, to doing something that you know would disappoint your mom. But she can't pick you out of the crowd.

Screen names are like masks. People can be whoever, whatever they want: Gossips, racists. Idiots. Great wits or scholars.

I am comforted by the fact that the community is watching itself. Readers seem to be setting the standards, reporting abuse and chiding each other.

"I wish some people could elevate their conversation above the fourth grade level," wrote jamesb, in the Jackson comment thread. "But I do not support editing their comments out. It's just as important for us to see the ugly side of some people's logic as it is to have the conversation about this mess."

Indeed, the comments tell us who we truly are.

So ask yourself: Do you like what you see? Are you elevating the conversation, or just chewing the fat?

Nicole Brodeur's column appears Tuesday and Friday. Reach her at 206-464-2334 or nbrodeur@seattletimes.com.

She's quitting the carbs.