I'd be happy to collaborate on the article if you're interested in having me. I've been an SDN administrator/senior moderator/advisor for going on 15 years now.
My opinion is that broadly there are two models for forums geared towards radiation oncology professionals or aspirants. These are anonymity optional (e.g. SDN) and identity enforced sites (e.g. themednet).
As thesauce points out, the principal advantage to anonymity optional sites is that people generally feel more open to share whatever they truly think. The problem is that is that you generally don't know the source of the information. Fortunately, there is a fairly high volume of people on SDN who quickly respond to things that are wrong or outlandish. Therefore, the culture is such that things that are controversial become obviously controversial and things that are correct or consensus opinion tend to be repeated and supported. SDN does require verification (which is protected by contract not to be shared) for verified statuses (such as "verified physician") which helps with this somewhat. If a user who clearly has no idea what they're talking about claims to be an attending physician or similar in their status (unverified) and is reported, we do investigate these claims and we have taken action for this in the past. Certainly, the information is more "rough around the edges". The writing is less polished and people are not being political when they post.
The principal advantage to identity enforced sites is that you know the source of the information. On themednet you often see big names in the field posting answers to questions such as clinical cases. For some this is a good thing. I sometimes hear my peers commenting that "so and so does X, so therefore maybe I should." I can't just say that "some guy does X on SDN", but rather more critically evaluate what is being said and stand behind it myself. From a personal standpoint, I'm much less inclined to post answers to radiation oncology questions when my identity is public. I do not have the status to challenge more senior people. But, on SDN nobody really knows who is more senior or who is a big name. I feel that my ideas are evaluated anonymously by my peers and based on my supporting evidence. With such scrutiny, I am more inclined to believe and follow the ideas promoted by others. With more public identities, people tend to be more political and less challenging of the ideas of others. I certainly have read some things on public sites that I find objectionable, but again I don't feel the status to actually object. It's not something that's really done in a public, professional setting unless you are also a big name person.
As an SDN administrator, I do get a lot of information about who is posting what. Again, that information is protected by contract, so it is not shared. I find it interesting that many of the "big names" only come here to defend their or their institutions reputation or promote things like residency positions, fellowship programs, research opportunities, talks that they're giving, etc... Therefore, some users do not post here except if there is some sort of benefit to them. I am not a fan of this type of behavior. That said I often feel as if I am in a minority. I have frequently been asked by my peers who know my online identity why I continue to post and help with the site if I "don't get anything out of it." I find it to be the most rewarding volunteer experience that I can have. Most of my time has been served in the physician-scientist forums, but here as well I take great pride in both contributing to patient care and helping others make decisions about entering the field. I have assisted hundreds on SDN in this way, a small fraction of whom eventually figure out who I am in person one way or another.
Conversely, themednet showcases the IDs of posters right next to their posts, which seems to make those same users post much more often and more thoroughly in response to questions. My hypothesis is that this is due to the inherent self-promotion that this provides. That is a good thing in some ways, as more case based material comes out from those specialist academic physicians. I suspect that they find the potential for personal rewards much higher in that setting versus the anonymous posting on SDN that will likely have little or no personal reward.
