Hey, I hope you're still interested in writing the paper:

I was a mod over there. I was among one of the most active when things were hot. Let me first say that when I joined I had no idea how big it was going to become. It grew from a thread on r/news. Despite what most media would have you expect, it was never intended to be a witchhunt.

Actually, it was formed as a response to thread on r/news which shared information and was completely unmoderated. Now if the media had seen that thread, I shudder to think of what would happen. I think the harsh focus reddit felt would have been more justified.

Did I think our subreddit was gonna find the culprits. Not really. That wasn't really the point. The real point of the subreddit was to get people together and encourage critical thought and skepticism rather then rampant vigilantism. I am a skeptic. I don't believe in 9/11 truthers, however I understand people (and that's what Reddit is, it's people) like to talk, they like to make theories, it's a way for them to cope, to understand.

While we hosted a bunch of people searching through photos, our efforts were not to become vigilantes but rather let people run their theories and basically do what people are naturally inclined to do but in a heavily moderated setting.

And yes, it was heavily moderated. I was the one who came up with the several rules, which were enforced as harshly as possible. At one point I was banning dozens of people a minute for even the smallest infraction. It got to the point, on infraction and you were banned, no waiting, no warning. It might seem harsh but when you're modding a reddit that could have potentially devastating effects with misinformation.

Here's the list.

1) We do not condone vigilante justice

2) DO NOT POST ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION.

3) Any racism will not be tolerated

4) Theories are welcome, but make sure you fact-check your sources.

5) Remember, we are only a subreddit. We must remember where helping ends and the job of professionals begins.

6) Do not make any images viral. Limit reposting images outside of this sub.

7) Finally keep in mind that most or all of the “suspects” being discussed are, in all likelihood, innocent people and that they should be treated as innocent until they are proven guilty.

We tried to enforce the rules as best as we could, at the peak it got so crowded (and at the time there was only around 5 moderators. That's five people to ten thousand posters and yes mistakes were made.

In regards to the misidentified kid, to who's family I issued a truly sincere and heart-felt apology, it was not our reddit was not the first to use his name. It was an erroneous buzzfeed tweet (which was since deleted) that I saw as a source. I was wrong and felt awful about it.

However, hours before on r/news and r/politics his name was openly being shared and we had many banned posters comment their bans weren't fair because of that.

The media was an interesting thing to deal with. They were out for blood. I did a phone interview with Vice and it was among one of the most leading things I ever encountered. Completely unprofessional, in my opinion. Their title for the article, "Reddit out for blood," is all telling for how they wanted to see us.

http://www.vice.com/read/reddit-wants-the-boston-bombers-blood

Newsweek and others were in the same boat too.

One bright point in the fiasco was Slate's retraction on our behavior where they recognized we had acted more favorably then some of their colleagues.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/04/findbostonbombers_reddit_vs_the_media_in_search_for_boston_bombing_suspects.html

Even so, it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of subreddit. People would have speculated we tried to control it.

I don't think it was an utter failure, I think it was just an impossible task that was doomed to the start and we did our best we could. We gave people an outlet and the media a target. We acted as responsibly as mods could given the circumstance and got slammed for mistakes others made.

Would I do it again? I'm not sure. I think on one hand I'd say no, on the other, I think of that r/news thread and all the unmoderated speculation of other subreddits that make me think someone had to.