"How much reputation has an anonymous source?" I think this might be key to solving the "anonymous libel" problem. Simply declare "anonymous libel" an oxymoron! We might argue that otherwise libelous statements, when made anonymously, carry a presumption of falsity, for otherwise the speaker would be willing to speak truthfully in his or her own person. Or, in other words, "Coward! He must be lying!" The perspective you propose is an easy way of orienting people towards positive reputations. If people consider an unestablished anonymous source as similar to a drunk on the street staggerring up to them, then sources start out with little positive reputation. For some things, anonymity is sufficiently valuable that its use doesn't discredit the source: crime tip-offs, inside corruption revealing, etc. In many of those cases, however, the source would need to establish their validity, which ties them back into the positive reputation game: an insider could reveal information that proves their inside knowledge, an informer could establish a long-term anonymous reputation, etc. In the case of the informer, police might still respond to random tips, but not with the same alacrity (yeah right) with which they respond to tips from established informers. dean