Abel Phuckwit and PalMD are leading a panel discussion on "on the needs and justification for anonymity or pseudonymity in blogging" at the upcoming ScienceOnline'09 conference (16-18 Jan 2009 in RTP, NC, USA). While I understand that there could be interest in this topic, I think that in large part it is superfluous, and the very existence of such a panel is tantamount to "blaming the victim".
Whether anyone "needs to", or can "justify", blogging pseudonymously is besides the point. Whose fucking business is it whether someone else chooses to blog pseudonymously? Anyone who doesn't like it can choose not to read pseudonymous blogs.
I think all this pseudonymity/anonymity handwringing is driven by the florid neuroses of a handful of non-pseudonymous bloggers who are outraged by the fact that their real-world credentials gain them no credibility at all in the blogosphere, while numerous pseudonymous/anonymous bloggers have developed--through the demonstrable value of their actual motherfucking content--tremendous respect and credibility. It pisses these weebly doucheknockers off that people laugh derisively at their inane gibberish and fancy-ass degrees, while taking very seriously the well-developed and well-written content of numerous pseuds, all of whom could very well be labrador retrievers with Windows passwords.