Shots In The Dark
Monday, April 09, 2007
  Should Blogs Make You Be Nicer?
I'm all for civility on blogs, but I'd rather have freedom—which is why this proposed blogging code of conduct sounds like a stupid idea to me.

As the Times reports,

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.

The two men want to create guidelines for blogs to follow; those that did would post little seals of approval, like the American flag stickers you used to get on your papers in first grade.

Harvard blogger David Weinberger sounds like he's on board with the plan, telling the Times, “The aim of the code is not to homogenize the Web, but to make clearer the informal rules that are already in place anyway."

Possible guidelines might include banning anonymous comments and the right to delete harassing or threatening comments.

The latter seems obvious to me; as newspapers don't have to run every letter they get, blogs don't have to publish every comment someone leaves. But banning anonymous comments entirely is a mistake. In my opinion, it's generally a healthy thing when people comment by name, but on the other hand, sometimes people don't want to, and that's fine too, as long as they're not hiding behind anonymity to be malicious.

The Times cites several examples of bad behavior behind this drive for a web code of conduct. One woman who writes frequently about her family now has to live with a website parodying her which incorporates copied photos of her daughter. One female blogger was threatened with death. Another woman was e-heckled during a public speech in which the audience was allowed to post simultaneous commentary. She lost her temper.

Death threats are, obviously, unacceptable. But these other things, unpleasant though they may be, seem predictable. Don't want someone to make fun of your daughter? Don't post pictures of her in a public space. Can't handle a little heckling? Don't give lectures.

(On a side note, I do think it's deeply unfortunate that so much of the anger out there seems directed at female bloggers. Clearly, some guys have issues. This is a longer conversation.)

Seems to me that these bloggers are finding out what journalists have always known: There are always a few crackpots out there, and more than a few nasty, unhappy people. Deal with it.
 
Comments:
Richard, you better get behind this online civility initiative and FAST. If you DON'T, I'MA CUT YOU.

Menacingly,

SE


PS. Do you have any young children I can have pictures of?
 
Standing Eagle,

No young children I'm aware of. But if I did, I wouldn't post pictures of them on a public blog.

And anyway, you cut me already, all the time, with your incisive comments.
 
Richard, this post does exactly what the proposed badges would do (as I understand it), except you do it by writing out your own implicit guidelines. The badges would make it easier for people to make explicit the implicit rules already guiding their site.

David Weinberger
 
David,

I don't have strong feelings about this, I just think it's a little silly. Do we need a badge to tell people not to make death threats? And would someone who's the type to make death threats look at a badge and suddenly say, "Oh, gosh, I better not do that"?

I'm also surprised by how thin-skinned some of these bloggers are. Of course they have the right to control what goes on their own blogs; as Ronald Reagan once said, I paid for this microphone.

At the same time, if bloggers want to be out there in the public arena, being taken seriously, then they have to deal with all the things traditional journalists have to deal with. You can't pick and choose which parts of free expression you want to live with.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name: Richard Bradley
Location: New York, New York,
ARCHIVES
2/1/05 - 3/1/05 / 3/1/05 - 4/1/05 / 4/1/05 - 5/1/05 / 5/1/05 - 6/1/05 / 6/1/05 - 7/1/05 / 7/1/05 - 8/1/05 / 8/1/05 - 9/1/05 / 9/1/05 - 10/1/05 / 10/1/05 - 11/1/05 / 11/1/05 - 12/1/05 / 12/1/05 - 1/1/06 / 1/1/06 - 2/1/06 / 2/1/06 - 3/1/06 / 3/1/06 - 4/1/06 / 4/1/06 - 5/1/06 / 5/1/06 - 6/1/06 / 6/1/06 - 7/1/06 / 7/1/06 - 8/1/06 / 8/1/06 - 9/1/06 / 9/1/06 - 10/1/06 / 10/1/06 - 11/1/06 / 11/1/06 - 12/1/06 / 12/1/06 - 1/1/07 / 1/1/07 - 2/1/07 / 2/1/07 - 3/1/07 / 3/1/07 - 4/1/07 / 4/1/07 - 5/1/07 /


Powered by Blogger