When Web sites started allowing comments directly on articles, they hoped it would foster debate or that someone would add to the reporting. That happened today with a big story.

First, I read on Jeff Jarvis' Buzz Machine blog about a story in which the reporter claims Dow Jones has been sold to Rupert Murdoch. Second, I read the story.

Third, I read a comment on the story from Linda Dunbar, vice president of corporate communications for Dow Jones. She says the story is incorrect and that the company released a press release contradicting it.

By the time I read it, the story had already been revised to include this paragraph:

On Friday afternoon London time, Dow Jones, reacting to the first posting of this story, issued a statement saying that it was "incorrect". When The Business contacted Dow's corporate affairs, however, it refused to elaborate on the record.

Even if the story proves to be true, the comment served its purpose. It allowed an avenue for dissent, which makes some newsroom folks uncomfortable. They worry that comments placed directly on stories undermine the newspaper's credibility.

If commenters actively try to debunk reporting it might disenfranchise readers. Or, they worry about confusion created by presenting readers' opinions on the same page as what is supposed to be objective reporting.

I disagree. Most of us would. Readers are smarter than they're given credit. Not only can they tell the difference between what is from the newspaper and what isn't, but also they appreciate the attempt at transparency.