Moving

This blog is moving. Check out Ohio Valley Politics for new posts.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Blogger's Code of Conduct?

The tech end of the blogosphere has been up in arms lately over some death threats left in the form of comments. As a reaction some people have come up with the following draft of a "Blogger 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 others

We 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.

I strongly disagree with points 3 and 5 and somewhat disagree with point 6. Blogs need to have anonymous comments and, to an extent, public discussion. Hopefully they'll come up with something better before they actually try to get bloggers to implements it or else it'll probably fall flat.

Source: O'Reilly Radar > Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

8 comments:

Randy Barnett said...

why disagree with #3?

David said...

There are times to deal with things privately and there are times to deal with things publicly. I don't like the way that (in it's current form) that it rules out public discussion. If I see something on another blog that I disagree I might want to to my own "rebuttal" post, does this code of conduct forbid that?

They really just need to work on the wording a little bit to win me over.

redhorse said...

I have no issue with #3 as I don't believe it is precluding online reaction, just stating offline conversation is the first step.

I have no problem with #5. The email doesn't need to be published and they are still allowing an alias. The email can be used to warn trolls.

That said, blogger allows for straight anonymous commenting, so all blogger blogs won't satisfy these (unenforced) suggestions.

David said...

True the email doesn't have to be published but I think the requirement alone might stop some people from commenting.

Going by the comments I've seen around the web it seems like the idea of a single standard code of conduct is doomed from the start. I think the best bet is for a Creative Commons type system where bloggers could pick the level that they choose to enforce.

Jill said...

David, people can pick their level anyway just by altering what they want in it and providing a link to the code somewhere on their blog.

I like Blogher's code, I like the proposed code. I hate anonymous comments - there are extremely few reasons people need to remain anonymous when commenting and frankly, if they need to remain anonymous while commenting, they can just email me the anonymous info and I'll decide if it's got enough import to it to put up even though anonymous. I have a real problem with people feeling like they can say what they want without an identity because I believe that people shouldn't say in print or in their blog what they wouldn't say to someone's face. Weird as it may seem to others, it's one of the reasons other people, long before I blogged, told me that I write just like I talk, since I was a kid.

David said...

I can't really disagree with you about anonymous comments Jill. I've been watching the whole "MM" thing play out over at BSB and it really got disgusting. It's never been a problem here though (knock on wood) and with Blogger's comment system I'd have to limit comments to only people with a Blogger account to meet the requirement.

As for picking and choosing I really think they are going for a uniform code so that when people go to a blog and see whatever badge they come up with they'll be familiar with the code without having to read it on every single site. If people pick and choose elements of the code to enforce that wouldn't be possible.

Pepper Pike Democratic Club said...

Your last graph is true, and I agree that some worthy bloggers and blogs won't want to bother with that. But I don't see why people cannot create their own personalized version of a code of conduct, if they want to. Badge or no badge, it gives readers and commenters a place to go to see what your ideas are about conduct on your blog. In the end, we're responsible for ourselves and no one else - the problem with the badge: enforcement. If you only adhere to the code you devise for yourself, you're answering for yourself as well. If people don't like how you police yourself, they can complain to you and you can dialogue about it.

Anyway - that's where I would head if I headed in the direction of a spelled-out code. I'm not sure it's even necessary for a blog as small as mine though. People who want to violate it will violate it regardless - so I just don't know what the value is - yet.

David said...

I agree with you about bloggers making their own code's (as needed). There's just no way a uniform code is going to appeal to everyone.