Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bloggers Get Civilized?
A passel of Web 2.0 gurus--the guys responsible for social networking sites, wikis, blogs, and other user-generated web content--are proposing the creation of new voluntary guidelines for fostering a more civil blogging environment:
Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.
Wales and his cohort are already big in the Creative Commons movement, which is pushing a new kind of copyright protection with looser rules for borrowing better suited to the web. Like CC, this is a sign of the coming maturity of the blog world. Some of the much-vaunted "free-wheeling" nature of blogs will be lost, but such is the nature of coming out of a niche market into the mainstream. Ah, but I can already hear the cries of "censorship!" echoing over hill and dale. Here's the intelligent response:
Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.
Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself. (emphasis added)
Those who prefer a totally open comments section, idle gossip, and frequent personal attacks would be free to continue. But those hoping for a different experience could sign on to whichever new code came the closest to his ideal blog world, forming more exclusive communities--a bunch of private neighborhood associations for the blog world, not a police state.
Some ideas for a proposed code of conduct are here. They're posted on wiki, so you can add to them or edit them as you please. They were inspired by the community guidelines laid out on the BlogHer network. (That's right, a bunch of chicks thought this up.) Besides limits on anonymity and stricter sourcing, they propose attempting to resolve quarrels privately over email before throwing squabbles up for public consumption.
Commenters? Trolls? Bloggers? Your thoughts? (Since Hit & Run has not yet adopted any of the proposed codes, your anonymous libelous threats against Reason bloggers and our loved ones are safe for now. Have at us.)
eb|4.9.07 @ 1:16AM|#
Since not having to actually look somebody in the eyes while
threatening to rip their heart out seems to be quite a rush to a
lot of keyboard commandos, such guidelines are going to really take
the piss out of a lot of people.
What will people do with the fantastical personalities they've used
for all these many years?
|4.9.07 @ 1:38AM|#
I'm guessing the easiest way for the ol' gubment to slip it's
tentacles in this would be to claim that:
-since these groups would more than likely consist of residents of
several states, and...
-this new Internet will likely continue to have an
increasing influence on commerce...
these governing organizations will require oversight via the
interstate commerce clause. Perhaps a new office, with a catchy
acronym like the Federal Internet Authority (FIA!), would be
needed.
This is a great idea, assuming it remains voluntary. I just hope I
haven't given the gaggers any ideas...
Rob|4.9.07 @ 2:03AM|#
Attempts at control result will result in increased anarchy. Good luck with all that...
|4.9.07 @ 3:02AM|#
Dese suckaz don't know sheeat about da web. Me an' my crew use da web to express aw feelin's dat we dare not express in public.
|4.9.07 @ 3:30AM|#
I've kinda grown fond of Edwards Supporter, Smarty pants McHollis, the late Jean Bart and all the other trollers (hello TLB!). Always good for a couple of laughs every time they post something. Though Juanita is a joke that's long wore out its welcome.
Goldwater Conservative|4.9.07 @ 5:56AM|#
Discussion forums and blogs are the reason I could never be an anarchist. People are fucking stupid and it's a shame that they pretty much control the government through their idiocy.
|4.9.07 @ 6:35AM|#
Anyone using the words 'blog' or 'blogger' is not to be taken
seriously anyway.
Also, Jimmy Wales is an untrustworthy moron for stating that the
use of a pseudonym equates to claiming credentials one never
earned.
|4.9.07 @ 7:49AM|#
Anyone using the words 'blog' or 'blogger' is not to be
taken seriously anyway.
Wow. Just.. wow.
Sandy|4.9.07 @ 7:53AM|#
This is a little out of context without knowing the original controversy and
|4.9.07 @ 7:55AM|#
A question:
What similar certificate of authenticity do MSM outlets subscribe
to indicating their commitment to truth, justice and fairness in
their reporting?
A statement:
No seal will undo the natural bias of seeking support for our
beleifs among those who say what we want to hear. Caveat emptor in
the marketplace of ideas.
Sandy|4.9.07 @ 7:59AM|#
Huh. Reason's server really doesn't like my second link.
Anyway, there were death threats, toleration of abuse, and gender
issues in the original controversy that prompted the effort, worse
than any of the posts about Reason's female staff (at least that
stayed around long enough for me to see them--many more may have
been deleted).
|4.9.07 @ 8:50AM|#
I will place a long bet
that nothing will become of this until:
-A Dem is in the White House (2008, definitely)
-The blogsphere shifts some of it's vitriol against them.
Now right-bashing, BushHate are in vogue. Once the left begins to
fuck up (and they will), you will see cries for the removal of
anonymity under "OMG Faux news has planted Comment05z!", "we can't
let this 'slander' go unpunished", "these voice do not deserve to
be heard"
|4.9.07 @ 8:55AM|#
Anyone using the words 'blog' or 'blogger' is not to be
taken seriously anyway.
Wow. Just.. wow.
What's so "wow" about that statement? It's a fucking website, and
giving it some cutesey name doesn't change a thing about the
concept.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 9:04AM|#
Sounds good. Things are best when the rules are clear.
I would prefer a set of rules that guarantees pseudonymity, but not
anonymity. I don't mind if people know who I am, but I don't want
everything I write indexed on GOOGLE under my real name. You never
know whether your next potential client will be a Repuplican, a
Democrat, a Green or a Libertarian. That's why. I had to go to the
mat with Phil on this principle at one time. I lost some friends
here, but it was worth it.
As the regulars will remember, I also don't like it when other
people hijack my pseudonym. I had to go to the mat with Mr. Radley
Balko on that one, and ended up getting a lot of my posts here
wiped, but it was worth it.
If these principles were in "the code" here at HnR then I
wouldn't have to be so harsh on people when these "more violations"
(for lack of a better term) come up.
Anonymous Motherfucker|4.9.07 @ 9:13AM|#
Wanna know who I am?
Go FUCK yourself!
This is MY internet where anyone can be anonymous
unless someone expends varying levels of effort to figure out who
we are-in which case no one is.
dhex|4.9.07 @ 9:28AM|#
since i spent the weekend being kinda mean - in pursuit of great
justice, mind you, but still - i can appreciate a desire to tone
down the craziness. especially with these tit for tat political
blog fights that end up mired in death threats and people posting
addresses and other personal information. (www.gothamist.com is an
example of a mostly non-political blog that is always filled with
all sorts of awfulness, regardless of the topic. people seem to
head there just to insult the folks that run the site. there are no
doubt thousands of others.)
on the other hand, isn't the nastiness why people read heavily
political blogs anyway? just wait until the election kicks into
overdrive...
|4.9.07 @ 9:36AM|#
Without the tit for tat nastiness that takes place in the
comments area of 'blogs', I don't think I would even be interested
in many of them.
Granted, some of them are quite pointless, rude, and derogatory,
but, as with TV programs that you don't like, you can just skip
over them. The point being, it should be your choice, not the
choice of others.
I don't like the whole censorship idea.
|4.9.07 @ 9:36AM|#
Requiring posters to register and maintain profiles or list
working e-mail addresses will make it much easier to delete
comments deemed unfit by the standards of the board, whether its
the basest Trolling or a well-reasoned argument that happens to
offend the orthodoxy.
I predict this will go one of two ways. Either it will be
enthusiastically embraced by habitutal posters so as to futher
insulate them from troublesome dissent on their favorite sites, or
it will cause a massive exodus from standards-adopting sites to
non-standards sites, killing off the old guard in rapid
succession.
Either way, Huffington will adopt it like a Malaysian orphan.
George Bush\'s Skull and Bones|4.9.07 @ 9:42AM|#
Hit and Run would be no fun if I couldn't post joke comments under joke handles.
Mel Gibson|4.9.07 @ 9:43AM|#
For instance, if there's a thread about somebody who said something racist, shouldn't I be able to adopt the handle that I'm using here and post something to the effect of "I don't see what the big deal is"?
eb|4.9.07 @ 9:53AM|#
To the people here who's panties are so twisted up right now,
this proposed system is voluntary. I don't see any
downside to a forum that establishes some minimum standards.
Oh sure, I'd miss all the "motherfuckers" but if people had to
spend less time on creative ways to threaten people and more on
arguing their position, it might actually improve the
dialogue.
Of course since we are talking about a voluntary system, sites that
enjoy the freewheeling world of unhampered debate could keep on
keeping on.
Start Making Sense|4.9.07 @ 9:55AM|#
correction: its, NOT it's
Never mind death threats, this would be worth a little fascism to
enforce.
Meter Maid|4.9.07 @ 9:57AM|#
ed, your disregard for the rules of haiku is a threat to all our freedoms
|4.9.07 @ 10:04AM|#
ditto to what ed said.
you pay the bills, you make the rules. Its not like being banned
from a website or having your comments deleted violates some
constitutional freedom. Go create your own website if you don't
like the rules of another one.
In ur office takin ur jobz|4.9.07 @ 10:19AM|#
LiT:
Ah seenk dat vot yoo zay 'as bien lust een tlansrashun.
|4.9.07 @ 10:35AM|#
I woke up in 1987 and am reading news.newgroups apparently. How'd the Great Renaming go? What are the various flavors of Big 8 moderation again?
VM|4.9.07 @ 10:53AM|#
de stijl - and your rugby shirt with the rubber buttons looks
just as lame today as it did back then!
bluchers, no socks, anyone?
|4.9.07 @ 11:12AM|#
I'm not sure anyone here is saying that this is akin to jailing
bloggers or silencing them. Most of the (serious) comments here
have focused on whether this will be effective at "raising the
level of discourse."
I think everyone who calls themselves libertarian with a straight
face must acknowledge that website owners can adopt whatever
polices they like, at their own peril.
Red Guard Re-education Program|4.9.07 @ 11:21AM|#
I can't help it, Judge.
I think in threes, Your Honor.
Not haiku, Dammit.
Mike Laursen|4.9.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Come on, we're capitalists here. Make commenters pay per column inch.
|4.9.07 @ 11:43AM|#
be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.
Er, how exactly do you silence whiny little shits and keep them
from complaining about a power bloggers have - and sometimes use -
now?
Daniel DiRito|4.9.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Where's my Easter Bonnet?
While some may see the blogosphere and the behavior of its
participants as a new phenomenon, it isn't difficult to find an
appropriate predecessor model. That model is found on the streets
of any metropolitan area and it is called traffic and the
prevalence of road rudeness...or in its extreme...road rage.
Granted, personal attacks and snark on the internet are not likely
to lead to fatalities, but if computers had wheels, it certainly
would.
Read more on the relationship between blog civility and Easter
Bonnets...here:
www.thoughttheater.com
MyBloggingBadge|4.9.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Always willing to expand the limits of blogging, I've created my
own BloggingBadge at the link. It could use some work, and I'm
currently trying to get the graphic artists from CreativeCommons to
come up with a better version.
On a serious note, I've been banned or had my CommentsDeleted from
a wide range of sites. The latest is CaptainsQuarterss, who's
refused to allow a comment I left pointing out how a comment he
directed at me was wrong. Other sites that have played funny games
include:
WashingtonMonthly (edited a few comments I left without noting
they'd been edited)
RedState (BannedMe after I'd posted ~75 diary entries)
DailyKos (BannedMe way back in '03)
Perhaps the next step for O'Reilly/Jimbo would be a
BloggerArbitration panel which would deal with bloggers who violate
their own badges. Perhaps there could be micropayments to resolve
cases.
lunchstealer|4.9.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Simple:
Whoever owns it makes the rules.
Like it or lump it.
it is so simple
he who owns it makes the rules
like it or lump it
lunchstealer|4.9.07 @ 3:00PM|#
and your rugby shirt with the rubber buttons looks just as
lame today as it did back then!
Wait, we're not supposed to have brought those back?
8|
Charley Foster|4.9.07 @ 4:35PM|#
What amuses me is this sort of officious enthusiasm to rush out and form a committee of 'experts' to design a solution. Typical.
|4.9.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Have at us.
I violently rant against my feigned perception of your position,
including lurid non-sequiturs as well as tossing red herrings sure
to inflame and distract. After that, I offer a completely off-topic
rant about someone else not associated with the given topic, but in
enough detail to have a fair chance of changing the topic.
Elisa Camahort|4.9.07 @ 8:43PM|#
Apologize if this is a repeat. I first tried in safari, and the
comment didn't seem to go through at all. Now, am trying via
Firefox.
Actually it's Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales, who are working on this
code of conduct. They have each used the public community
guidelines we have for the BlogHer.org site as a model/foundation,
but we are not working with them on this ongoing code of conduct
effort.
In fact, at BlogHer we see a difference between setting public
guidelines for community participation within our own community vs.
trying to come up with a code for the entire blogosphere to
theoretically follow or not. That distinction was not drawn clearly
in the article, but you can see more of our thoughts on that
distinction at my blog:
http://workerbeesblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/theoretically-going-to-be-in-mondays-ny.html,
and from Lisa on a BlogHer post (in the comments):
http://blogher.org/node/17887#comment-17365
We think every blogger has the right to set their own rules. Those
rights cut both ways. I am free to set my own policies for my blog.
I'm also free not to frequent blog/sites that have policies I don't
like...for whatever reason. What we don't think is that a single
one-size-fits-all code for the blogosphere or internet ever could
or should work.
Thanks.
|4.10.07 @ 8:21AM|#
Come on, we're capitalists here. Make commenters pay per
column inch.
Best idea I've heard all week.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245