There have been several anonymous contributors here who have developed pretty good reputations by the quality of their contributions, technical, philosophical, literary, even occasionally, fair-minded wisdom. Some have been subsquently identified -- by self-revelation or by leaks -- others remain unknown. Fortunately their contributions endure (where are the archives these days, if any?). As established here over numerous years, reputations might well be more solid if contributors are not identified, instead contributions have to stand on their own and not be colored by personally-identified reputation -- the latter highly subject to spin and fabrication, not to say plagiarism, vanity, pride and braggardy. Anonymous reputation comes close to the saw that there is no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't fret getting credit for it. To be sure, it will be hard to avoid wanting credit, so deeply embedded is that aspiration in societies based on prizes and praise, egos and salaries. Some say the greatest cause of neuroticism and pathological behavior among spies is secrecy from the public about who has accomplished what. And the agencies' piddling certificates and stars on the wall are salt in the wounds of insufficient recognition. No wonder the murders, rapes, burglaries and other high crimes of secret operatives are TS, no, not those committed against enemies, those done in-house. FWIW, the spy agencies do not act on anonymous accusations against themselves, way too dangerous, but eagerly spread those against others. So, following the lead of the best and brightest criminals in the world, it is probably a good idea to have multiple personas, some anonymous, some not. Insist that others identify themselves, and rat on those who refuse. Thus, the increase in calls for Internet IDs.