Tim O'Reilly is concerned about "civility" on blogs so he proposes a Blogger's Code of Conduct. Part of the code requires censoring comments and not allowing anonymous comments. I can't aggree to that. There are other things about the code that I disagree with.
If you follow the code you're supposed to put this sheriff's badge on your blog. I'm not going to follow the code and even if I were, the idea of advertising it with a sheriff's badge is offensive. It makes you look like a policeman.
If you're not going to follow the Blogger's Code of Conduct, this is what you're supposed to put on your blog. This is an open, uncensored forum. We are not responsible for the comments of any poster, and when discussions get heated, crude language, insults and other "off color" comments may be encountered. Participate in this site at your own risk.That's exactly the message I want you to hear. The only thing I censor is spam.
I wonder if bloggers, like yourself, who emerged from the anarchy of Usenet have different views on civility than those who grew up on blogs and moderated web forums. As a grizzled veteran of usenet myself, I must admit to being uncomfortable with the hierarchical nature of blogs, and still prefer the egalitarian spirit of Usenet. It is a shame that the latter is dying (slowly in some cases like T.O., quicker in other areas). I'm glad that many bloggers will allow freedom of expression to take precedence over politeness, but I can't help but think a Usenet-style killfile would solve everyone's problems.
ReplyDelete>killfile
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, if only .... I've seen attempts at it but there's nothing consistently usable for that purpose.
I do think there are times that it's appropriate to delete trolling as well as pure commercial spam; I think John Scalzi makes the point well here:
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/005024.html
I grew up on moderated web forums, and I think the idea of a universal blogger CoC is bullshit.
ReplyDeleteIf you have to enforce it, it's not civility.
At some point, people who simply state their opinions rudely have become labelled as trolls, which to me is just people who claim they hold certain opinions just because they know it will annoy people, regardless of whether or not they actually hold those opinions.
I don't censor the former, and I don't think they should be called trolls either.
It is BS to put up what is currently default moderation as "a code".
ReplyDeleteThere are some mechanisms (private contacts) in O'Reilly's suggestion that would slow down a blog. It is IMHO also doubtful that this requirement contributes to less severe problems. Some sociopaths will react more strongly. Anonymity on the web is a feature, not a fault.
My thinking so far is that if blog owners makes practical and different choices on moderation there will be fora that fits all 'customers'. O'Reilly's suggestion may suit some, but not all.
As another grizzled veteran, I also lament the decline of Usenet, and have (somewhat reluctantly) recently joined the blogging sector (as opposed to just the commenting sector) of the blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am generally in favour of civility, there are times when heated discussion and crude language *is* appropriate. How does one decide when the line is crossed? I think it goes without saying that I have the right to delete comments from my blog if I so choose, but having a shiny badge on the one hand is not going to ensure that I will be dilligent about deleting bad stuff, and on the other may encourage me to decide that comments with which I disagree are offensive and should be deleted. As for anonymous comments, I fail to see why this is an issue. It takes only a few minutes to get a throwaway email address.
I think Usenet has suffered from lack of scalability (and probably lack of pictures), and definitely could be characterized as having an overall lack of civility (which was often able to be countered by newsgroup "culture", if not moderation), but personally, I would take lack of civility over an excess of politeness, if given the choice.
Here's another voice saying no to censorship. Nobody has the right not to be offended - if the web frightens you, don't go there. I'm not going to police my blog because some person I've never met thinks certain words don't belong on his monitor.
ReplyDeleteI've never been on Usenet (in? with?), but from what I've gathered, it seems similar to a large forum. Blogging isn't the only way to engage in back-and-forth commentary on the web.
Re Usenet: Many portals or larger sites have discussion groups. I haven't looked into it, but perhaps Google has a search service for them. (That is still not quite as convenient as Usenet, of course.)
ReplyDelete"Civility". According to the principle "require tolerance, not respect" civility isn't a requirement. And too much incivility strangle discussion, which seems rather self-limiting. :-)
I haven't followed this story back, but I'm guessing the proposed Code is motivated to some extent by the Kathy Sierra affair. Speaking very hypothetically, if someone posted threats (against anyone) in comments on my blog, I'm pretty sure I would delete them (possibly with a notice that I'd done so). But that's my "code", not someone else's, and I don't promise to generally police civility or language.
ReplyDeleteHere's my version:
ReplyDelete"This is an open, uncensored forum, though I reserve the right to censor you any time I want, unless you send me money to cover the cost of the server you are using right now. We (and I do mean the Royal We, because it's just me here blogging from the basement) are not responsible for the comments of any poster, and when discussions get heated, crude language, insults and other "off color" comments may be encountered, especially by the blog owner who is, after all, paying for this bandwidth. Participate in this site at your own risk. But do have fun"