So, Tim O’Reilly posted his version of a Code of Conduct for Bloggers to adhere to. He admits it is merely a starting point for discussion, and nothing has been templated in stone. As such, I figured I would take the baton and run with it. I will try to take a look at each individual item in the Code and hopefully further the dialog that has begun.
The first Code is:
Take responsibility not just for your own words, but for the comments you allow on your blog.
That is an interesting one to start with, as I think what has popularized blogging and legitimized it — to a degree — is the fact that it is interactive and dynamic. Allowing comments not only turns and editorial into a conversation, but it makes accountability almost immediate. Commenters enforce standards, they hold you to your words, and they serve as a reality check, often brutally so.
What O’Reilly suggests is that I, as an author of an article on a blog or as the Supreme Omniscient Blog-master Editor (as I like to refer to myself), am responsible not only for what I write or allow other authors to write on this blog, but for the comments made by the readers of this blog. My gut reaction is to consider this nothing but uber-sensitivity ladled with heavy-handed cesnorship.
However, I understand that a line has to be drawn. That line may exist in different forms and in different places depending on the blog. But, having a clear line is crucial. Something I should devote time to is making that line clearer and I imagine that would be the same for most blogs out there.
So, will I start mass-deleting comments? No. But, I shall make an attempt in the future to clarify where the line lies and what the consequences will be for crossing it. Whatever the decision, I will try to make it fair and completely transparent. I think that is what the goal of this particular code should be.
This is a mixed bag for me.
I don’t agree that a blogger needs to take responsibility for the comments posted in response to his articles. Anyone who feels that is the case should prohibit comments altogether.
A blog is a form of discussion. You cannot accept responsibility for another’s comment in print or online, any more than you can during any normal discussion. Attempting to do so introduces the worst of slippery slopes, leading- inevitably- to censorship, as Colin suggests. Why allow any opinion or comment that differed from your own? Why open yourself up to take punishment for someone getting offended by what someone else said?
Blogs ostensibly grew as what some perceived to be an inadequate media. The ultimate expression of the First Amendment, true freedom of voice for the masses.
Having said that, I acknowledge that certain rules need to be established. But only the barest minimum to keep civil conversation going. And everyone is responsible for what he or she says.
I actually agree with Carl. Its one thing to police the comments for obviously outlandish comments, say a mental incompetent accusing someone of being a racist because they don’t like a certain Chinese beer, that should be recognized as horsesh*t and another to be responsible for everything that someone puts there. I certainly wouldn’t feel personally responsible if some misguided and potentially insane individual made the above mentioned comment. I’m responsible for what I wrote, that’s all. 99% of the time, the comments aren’t going to be something that would require censorship. The other 1% would be inflammatory slander from people who can’t read sarcasm and wit into the blog post.
Even then, as long as the ‘insane’ person’s ramblings stayed fairly on-topic and didn’t break policies againsrt excessive profanity or overt inflammatory arguments… meh, the comment is still up there.
For posterity purposes only.
It’s a tough call. I’m on the side of policing comments ONLY if there are direct, personal flames made at other commenters. Or it’s an obvious spam comment (either made by bot or an organization’s employee incognito). And even when it’s a personal attack, I’ll only police after a warning.
I look at it this way - there’s enough asshole and stupid behaviour online from those who think they’re tough since they’re sitting behind a keyboard. I prefer my blogs not add to that number. Myself excluded
I am certain we have posted this before, but it if not, Penny Arcade has a great theory:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
I don’t really disagree with what anyone has said. And, I think the main point — at least what I have derived from it — was that there should be clear guidelines and complete transparency in the enforcement of the guidelines.
It’s difficult to draw a line that can define what’s right and what isn’t. In our attempt to bring more civility to the governing process, we define civility as: “claiming and caring for one’s needs, identity and beliefs without degrading someone else’s in the process.”
It seems to me that the blogging community can use dose respect for differences without degrading one another.
Civility is, of course, a laudable goal in any discussion. I prefer it come voluntarily, where a very small, unbiased set of guidelilnes are put into place and everyone follows them because they have a genuine desire to further discourse.
Unfortunately, that is not an easy state to maintain. Some are emboldened by anonymity, others by idealism and zealotry. And conversation can break down when ideals clash. Then the question becomes, at what point has a commenter passed from disagreement (even angry disagreement) to hate speech, pointless insults, or trolling?
Degrading someone’s beliefs, for example. Some (in my opinion, overly sensitive) people view any atheist as an affront to their religion. There is no mollifying, no placating. Who then, falls into the wrong? The atheist who said, “God does not exist,” or the Christian who responds with a string of colorful invectives?
Note that my personal belief is that you can insult someone as much as you want, as long as you keep the language PG-13 for the sake of not having the online equivalent of a public toilet.
The looser farmland that landed on my mom, the lopsided she became. So what do you think? I asked Ember.