The New York Times has officially entered the Web 2.0 era. Last week, readers of the the newspaper’s website, NYTimes.com, were invited to post comments about news stories for the first time. Since interactivity is the cornerstone of Web 2.0, welcome aboard, Gray Lady!

Clark Hoyt, the “public editor” for The New York Times, wrote Sunday that the newspaper’s efforts to embrace true online interactivity are aimed at preserving “civil discourse.”

It’s a little late in the game, I have to say, but give NYTimes.com a break. I welcome The Times’ new policy, and I think it’s a good balance of transparency and quality control.

The website has hired four part-time staffers to screen reader submissions before posting them.

While screening comments may not be necessary at most newspapers, things would quickly spiral out of control if NYTimes.com allowed unmoderated, anonymous comments to be posted there, and ultimately the quality of the website would suffer.

The Times is perhaps unique in the publishing world for the level of bile, anger and outright hatred its very name brings forth in online chat rooms. Don’t believe me? Check out the messages posted on the Yahoo NYT discussion boards if you dare, and shudder. As Martin Nisenholtz, senior vice president of digital operations of the New York Times Company said: “Pure free-for-all doesn’t, in my opinion, equal good. It can equal bad.” In The Time’s case, I’d have to agree.

I take issue with one of Clark Hoyt’s comments, however. He writes that hiring four part-timers as moderators is an investment “unheard of in today’s depressed newspaper environment.” Really? If that’s the case, newspapers are hurting even worse than I thought. The lack of forward-thinking investment in newspaper websites has contributed mightily to the “depressed” conditions the newspapers face. Four part-timers will hardly break the bank, will they Clark?

I also have a suggestion. Hoyt points out that The Times continues to accept submissions by users with anonymous screen names. I think that NYTimes.com is within its rights to accept posts from people who write only under their actual names. In fact, I’d like to see this happen across the industry. Too often, web posters hide behind screen names to throw mud (or worse). Newspapers don’t accept anonymous letters to the editor. Why should the rules be any different for newspaper websites?

I’d wager that if only people with verified identities were able to post on NYTimes.com, the need for moderators would be entirely eliminated, and we would see the level of discourse rise substantially at the same time.

[Disclaimer: Before coming to Topaz Partners I worked for Boston.com, part of the New York Times Company.]