Why is it different?
Reader comment on: Crovitz on Anonymity
Submitted by scott (United States), Nov 30, 2009 15:31
Because the whistleblower is not offering anything additional analysis or weight to the e-mails. The whistleblower is doing just what the label suggests: blowing a whistle to draw your attention. It doesn't matter if he/she is a PhD or the janitor who found an open computer. Is this the same standard we want from "peer reviewers?"
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Submit a comment on this article
Other reader comments on this item
| Title |
By |
Date |
| Climate Gate [125 words] | Quinn Woodworth | Dec 1, 2009 14:16 |
| "Heed My Opinion!" vs. "Look At What I Found!" [210 words] | bobby b | Nov 30, 2009 15:41 |
| then whats the point of this site? [60 words] | Fen | Nov 30, 2009 15:37 |
| apples and oranges [102 words] | Jeff | Nov 30, 2009 15:35 |
| ⇒ Why is it different? [56 words] | scott | Nov 30, 2009 15:31 |
| Tit for tat [57 words] | agesilaus | Nov 30, 2009 15:13 |
Coastal property...
[w/response] [24 words] | newscaper | Nov 30, 2009 15:09 |
| Questions [65 words] | BillW | Nov 30, 2009 15:04 |
| Whistleblowing is different than stealing or trespassing [108 words] | Independent | Nov 30, 2009 15:03 |
| All secrets are not the same [109 words] | Shannon Love | Nov 30, 2009 14:53 |
| caution in revolutions [53 words] | Michael Kennedy | Nov 30, 2009 14:47 |
Comment on this item
