It was a week ago that the Washington City Paper joined the blogosphere, kicking off their staff blog, City Desk. Since then, they have posted on politics, media, fashion, theater and even kicked off their own question-and-answer feature, “The ‘Huh?’ Bub.”

But unlike the Post’s Metro reporters, who have admitted to DCist that blogging on D.C. Wire is an “annoyance,” the City Paper’s staff seems to be enjoying the newfound online medium. Wrote Senior Editor Mike DeBonis to DCist:

On the whole, blogging’s been a blast. So far people have shown a lot of energy for it. I think we’ve worked it into our weekly routine pretty smoothly, and the staff’s been very positive and receptive to doing this. Our writers gather plenty of worthwhile info that doesn’t make it into the paper for a variety of reasons — space, timeliness, format — so everyone’s thrilled we have this option now.

Of course, as thrilling as this new-fangled phenomenon known as blogging may be for the City Paper’s staff, they’re not as happy with having to watch their comment threads like hawks, save a certain Ward 3 candidate hijacking them for free advertising. On a post yesterday on the crowded Ward 3 race, 57 comments were generated, of which 36 were removed. Comments on the post were eventually shut down by an irate City Paper staffer who wrote:

Things that City Desk hates: (1) people who can’t stay on topic, and (2) people who make City Desk sit at his computer at 12:30 a.m. deleting off topic, libelous, and bullshit comments.

Said DeBonis on this point:

I should have known our let-the-people-speak, anonymous, unmoderated comments policy would turn out to be more than a little utopian. But we’re sticking with it for the time being.

Good for you, City Desk. We’re happy to see you facing up to the wild world of anonymous commenting. And about that content — a little light on it today, aren’t we?