Elite bloggers attack code of conduct for the blogosphere
A new blogging code of conduct designed to bring civility to the blogsphere is under attack by some of the big hitters of the blogging world, including Robert Scoble and Michael Arrington.
The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and book publisher and conference presenter, Tim O’Reilly (pictured), released a draft code of conduct to help combat cyber bullies.
“We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility,” wrote O’Reilly in his blog.
O’Reilly called for a code of conduct in the aftermath of the Kathy Sierra affair. Sierra, a prominent blogger writing about “creating passionate users”, canceled a workshop after receiving death threats.
One of the more controversial ideas in the proposed code is that bloggers should not allow anonymous comments, and that they should delete comments they deem unacceptable. Bloggers usually balk at deleting unpleasant comments for fear of being accused of censorship.
Prominent blogger Robert Scoble won’t be signing up for the code in its present form, and says that he feels uncomfortable with the social pressure from other bloggers to agree to the code:
“I do find disquieting the social pressure to get on board with this program. Tim O’Reilly is a guy who really can affect one’s career online (and off, too). I do have to admit that I feel some pressure just to get on board here and that makes me feel very uneasy.”
Michael Arrington from TechCrunch won’t be signing up anytime real soon either:
“I’m not turning off anonymous comments, I’m not going to always try to talk privately with someone before I write, and I’m also not going to allow a mob to decide what types of words constitute “unacceptable content.” And I’m certainly not putting a badge on my site that says whether I comply or not. The code of conduct and the mass of bloggers lining up behind it scares me a lot more than the hate comments and death threats I’ve received in the past. I won’t support it.”
The first draft of the code is reproduced at the end of this post and it’s also available from O’Reilly’s blog; the final code of conduct will be posted at www.bloggingcode.org (it’s an empty site at the time of writing). In the spirit of Web 2.0, bloggers and other interested parties can “edit” the code of conduct at Wales’ free-to-the-user wiki site, Wikia.
While I applaud the efforts to bring some civility to the blogosphere, the problem with the code of conduct is that it strikes at the very heart of what makes the blogosphere so compelling.
As someone who has been attacked in comments on many occasions, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, I recognize that the overall process of receiving and exchanging comments is really healthy. The actions of a few losers and fanatics, who leave threats and unpleasant comments, should not interfere with the benefits enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of blogosphere participants who already known how to behave like decent human beings.
Of course there will always be the odd trouble maker, and people who clearly have issues, but it’s usually obvious to other readers who those people are. And in extreme examples the blogger CAN delete the offensive comments.
Perhaps what’s really needed is for individual bloggers to spell out exactly what their own policies for dealing with comments is – it is their blog after all.
Having said that, the proposed code of conduct has crystallized some important issues and made suggestions on how to deal with them. It has also kick started a valuable conversation on the blogosphere that the blogging community clearly needed to have.
Here’s the draft of the code of conduct:
We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.
1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.
We are committed to the “Civility Enforced” standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we’ll delete comments that contain it.
We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that:
- is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
- infringes upon a copyright or trademark
- violates an obligation of confidentiality
- violates the privacy of othersWe define and determine what is “unacceptable content” on a case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list. If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]
2. We won’t say anything online that we wouldn’t say in person.
3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.
When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved–or find an intermediary who can do so–before we publish any posts or comments about the issue.
4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.
When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive, we’ll tell them so (privately, if possible–see above) and ask them to publicly make amends.
If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and the perpetrator doesn’t withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat.5. We do not allow anonymous comments.
We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name.
6. We ignore the trolls.
We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, as long as they don’t veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them–”Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.” Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.
Blogs that don’t follow the code of conduct will asked to display “anything goes” badges, along with the following text:
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.
Related Posts:
April 12th, 2007
2007 04:10
Re: Tim O’Reilly proposes “Blogger Code of Conduct” WarRites
by Someone on 2007-04-12 05:00:19
Link http_//_radar_oreilly_com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1_html- Entailment -:=
www_mathematics_mil [04_12_07 01:43 AM]
“Blogging Code of Conduct” equals “Jew or not Jew”
[It's all disgusting jewish-zionistic propaganda.]
Examples:
www_mathematics_mil Apr 11th, 2007 – 22:23:17
‘Zooming in on Darfur: Google teams up with _Holocaust Museum_’(4/11/2007):
Reference _Holocaust Museums_: ‘Usama bin Laden Says Israeli Regime is Behind the 9-11 Attacks KABUL, Afghanistan (Ummat): Prominent Arab mojahed (freedom fighter) Usama bin Laden or the Al-Qaida group has nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the Bush Administration, according to an Usama bin Laden interview with Ummat, the Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper. In his interview, Usama bin Laden pointed out that the Israeli regime is behind the 9-11 attacks’[Bin Laden: AUTHENTIC INTERVIEW by Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum, October, 2001 ].
Piper Apr 11th, 2007 – 23:43:33
This is not an apolitical move. Darfur is located on top of some large oil reserves that a Chinese oil company currently has dibs on. Sudan geography alone makes it an important strategic point. (it’s connection to the read sea, important rivers, relation to Mideast and Africa etc.) The US government wants the ability to create a pretense to get its hands in Darfur, just as it did in Iraq. The demonstration against the genocide last year included speakers from congress and the state department. The amount of people killed is really quite smaller than those killed in Iraq. (about 200,000 vs. 655,000-900,000 deaths) Genocide has only been an issue for our government when money and power are at stake. The Sudanese government is supporting the massacres in order to push rebels and the communities that support them off the oil rich land. Given our government’s record, there’s no reason to think this would stop if they stepped in to get the oil themselves. Most likely the violence would increase because the political pressure to stop the killing would disapear. That a holocaust museum is involved isn’t suprising. Most holocaust institutions (not to mention Jewish institutions) have been taken over by a leadership that actively collaborates with American imperialism. Instead of drawing real lessons from the holocaust that could prevent another one (such as the need for a working class movement, the threat a collapsing capitalist system poses, and the need Jews have to align ourselves with workers and oppressed nationalities (including and especially Palestinians) in order to build a new world etc.) Holocaust rememberance has been primarily used to bolster the image of American imperialism and shield it’s junior parters in the Israeli government from attack. (Just one instance: The entire justification for war in Iraq was basically: Saddam=Hitler) This Darfur propaganda is only the latest installment.
April 17th, 2007
I think the whole idea is utterly ridiculous and severely lacking on so many levels.
So just for kicks and giggles I drafted my own version (the Fight Club version!) of Tim’s code of conduct. It was either that or blow my top. :P
Shine on,
Aaron
June 7th, 2007
It doesn’t sound like a bad idea. It seems that it is just about respecting each other and being considerate. Attack ideas (if you are going to be critical) but not individuals. Am I looking at this wrong? I like the frankness and openness of the internet and blogs. It’s refreshing and seems like a healthy outlet. But I’m for just about anything that encourages a healthy discussion and debate. Let’s improve the world. It will never be perfect nor would we want it to be. But let’s keep moving forward in a positive direction.