I always get a chuckle out of reading things in newspapers that I read around the blogosphere days, if not weeks earlier. Case in point: the Kathy Sierra hubaloo has finally got a bit of a footnote in the New York Times (which has since wound down with a joint statement from Kathy Sierra and Chris Locke, which got absolutely no link coverage) . The substance of the article is around the issue of a Bloggers Code of Conduct, which is something the venerable Tim O’Reilly had put forth while the crapstorm was still raging.
Hmmm … Bloggers Code of Conduct? Seems reasonable in light of all of the personal ad-hominem attacks, right?
Actually, no.
The whole idea of a Bloggers Code of Conduct is ludicrous. And its not because there isn’t a need for civility in the blogosphere. In fact, there will always be a bit of a mob mentality out there, and there will always be cheap-shot artists.
But here’s the rub. The people who were responsible for the attacks weren’t bloggers. Or rather, we’ll never know if theyw were bloggers. What we do know as that were anonymous cowards, trolling behind fake email addresses, hurling their vindictives.
Bloggers don’t need a code of conduct, because it isn’t the content of blogs that are in the question. What’s being called into question is the cowardly personal attacks that are sent by email, and left in the comments sections of blogs.
And if that’s really the issue, then calling for a Bloggers Code of Conduct is pointless.
What we really mean to discuss is the more mundane aspect of blogging, which is to merely having a comments policy. Heck, this isn’t even the first time I’ve blogged about it. Its not sexy, I know, but that’s really that’s the crux of the issue.
Sure, we can dress it up in “free speech” terms, but again, its ludicrous.
We all have an internal thermostat for a certain level of tolerance for this kind of stuff. Even the most strident free speech fans amongst us have their limits. To use an absurd example, you might tolerate cheap ad hominem attacks, but would you tolerate links to child porn sites? How about images of hard core pornography? How about the hijacking of your comments by yahoos who want to debate off-comment issues? Or, how about explicit death threats?
Wait. Kathy Sierra already had to deal with that.
Getting back on topic — we all have a “comments policy”, but we all don’t list it out explicitly. Maybe we should. I know I’ve been meaning to publish one. And there’s a good reason to do so. Not only will it help delineate what you personally feel is acceptable and not acceptable, but it also explicitly gets down the “rules” for your comments, so that your audience knows what to expect — and more importantly, not be surprised when something gets moderated or deleted.
Because we *all* have limits to what we would tolerate. And for most, it would be at things like abuse, or anything that promotes hate, prolonged off-topic rants, and that which is obviously comment spam (for an example, check out the BlogHerald comments policy that I drafted some weeks ago).
So, is it important to have a Bloggers Code of Conduct? No. And the whole issue of civility and collegiality is only one aspect of it.
But should we all have a comments policy that is clearly written and understood? Sure.
Is there anything more to discuss? Well, if we’re going to have a discussion about civility, perhaps we should ask ourselves what is the real source of incivility — is it blog posts or is it blog comments? And if its comments, the follow up question should be about if a code of conduct would ever work for commenters.
But I think we all know the answer to that one.
April 9th, 2007 at 4:23 am | Permalink
[…] will point out that Tony Hung’s idea of having a simple statement around a blog’s comments policy (allowing anonymous or not, […]
April 9th, 2007 at 6:59 am | Permalink
[…] addition, as Tony Hung notes: “The people who were responsible for the attacks weren’t bloggers.” Now that would […]
April 9th, 2007 at 7:07 am | Permalink
You can’t police the Internet, it’s that simple. You can’t even civilize it. You can only clean up the mess in front of your own front door (comments). I have no doubt that Tim’s intentions are noble, but I just don’t think it’ll work.
April 9th, 2007 at 7:36 am | Permalink
[…] of a code offends me somehow. It seems to be yet another way to avoid personal responsibility. Tony and Scoble bring up interesting points, two posts well worth your […]
April 9th, 2007 at 7:37 am | Permalink
[…] enforce them? Would we see bloggers chastising each other for not following the Code of Conduct? Tony Jung makes a great point when he suggests O’Reilly is confusing a Code of Conduct with the need […]
April 9th, 2007 at 8:00 am | Permalink
Tony, the point that’s been missed here is that it doesn’t particularly have anything to do with blogs, either - or at least blogs in particular. Calling it a “blogging” code of conduct strikes me as PR more than anything else. This is an issue wherever comments are possible - ie on all Web 1.0 forums, and such-like, where the content can often be just plain atavistic. (I don’t know why anyone would spend any time building a community where that kind of behaviour was welcome, but many do.)
The issue is whether people who control commentable sites are going to manage those comments. Which as you note is really about the kind of community one wants to have. It’s kind of surprising, at this point in the development of user-provided content tools, that most of the chatter about the Sierra issue hasn’t gotten this point. For myself, I don’t really get the point that some make that this is about free speech, or allowing an ecosystem to develop naturally. I think that’s horsecookies. It’s about the level of effort each of us cares to put into ensuring that our communities are constructive places for people to meet. And I personally don’t think that surrendering one’s community to the pure unmitigated evil dished out by a small group of mentally disordered individuals - all in the name of “freedom” - makes any kind of point at all.
BTW, I think there’s good reason for community owners to recognize the particular vulnerability of some members of their communities when they establish those norms. Most of us in these communities are men, and we’re just not as aware as we should be of the impact of the worst of this stuff on our female colleagues. We could do a much better job of that, I think.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:20 am | Permalink
Yeah I agree with you here. You can’t expect the percentage of villians that are in daily life, the ones you see on the news, to not make their way onto the internet.
Just here there is no police no law system that protects you from personal attacks…or is there? Oh! yeah that’s what O’reilly wants to do.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:34 am | Permalink
Publishing a formal comments policy does no harm, you don’t need to do that to acquire the authority to edit and remove comments. A blog is a publication, not some kind of community. People who post comments are implicitly asking for your permission to add their content to your publication. You can grant that permission as you see fit.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:42 am | Permalink
I agree that a comments policy is far better than a code of conduct; however, I have decided not to go down that route favouring the common sense approach. If you don’t add to the discussion, and I don’t like what you have to say, then your comment gets deleted. That simple.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:43 am | Permalink
Ali, laws exist to deter libel and slander. Publishers, at least the smart ones, have always vetted everything they publish to avoid being sued. That’s what protects us from being libelled or criminally threatened. It works because the link between the suspect content and its author is usually evident. In the case of blogs, that’s not the case. That’s a limitation of technology. at least for now. However, the fact that it might be difficult to discover the real identity of someone who posts on a blog doesn’t negate the fact that the person running the blog is responsible for everything that’s published on it. A blogger who allows unfettered and unmoderated commenting is making a conscious choice.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:47 am | Permalink
[…] the ’sphere today about this idea (my earlier comments here), and some MSM coverage. I think Tony Hung has the right idea IMO (though at its heart the difference is mostly semantic), but I still […]
April 9th, 2007 at 9:54 am | Permalink
As a blogger myself I consider it very important to police the comments left on your blog.
I read every comment that it left on my blog. Some I edit for “bad” words and others I just delete due to content or their general spammy nature.
Just because someone jumps up in a crowded movie theatre and yells, “I’ve got tramamene for sale!!!” does not mean I have to listen to them!
April 9th, 2007 at 10:22 am | Permalink
[…] Hung neatly summarized the difference: So, is it important to have a Bloggers Code of Conduct? No. And the whole issue of […]
April 9th, 2007 at 10:27 am | Permalink
Charlene Li, who shares the Groundswell blog with me, put out one of these codes of ethics in 2004:
http://forrester.typepad.com/charleneli/2004/11/blogging_policy.html
The point of this was not that all bloggers need one, but that corporate types entering the blogosphere could use some rules so people known what to expect.
It’s more than a comment policy, but that’s because when GM or HP blogs you want to believe it’s more than just whatever they made up that morning.
April 9th, 2007 at 10:41 am | Permalink
[…] Code of Conduct or Not? - Scobleizer My Thoughts On O’Reilly’s Code of Conduct - Crunchnotes Why Are We Still Confusing Blogging Code of Conduct With Having A Comments Policy - Deep Jive Intere… […]
April 9th, 2007 at 10:54 am | Permalink
[…] whole Kathy Sierra incident. But I’m going to have to agree with Mike Arrington, Dave Taylor, Tony Hung and others that Tim’s proposed “code of conduct” for the blogosphere — […]
April 9th, 2007 at 10:58 am | Permalink
I have posted some thoughts on this question of civility, see http://thoughtpad.net/who/alan-dean/on-civility.html
April 9th, 2007 at 11:33 am | Permalink
This seems like such an elaborate piece of linkbait, but it’s not, which is weird. It’s like some kind of dream that Oreilly has cooked up. Did I take the blue pill?
April 9th, 2007 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
[…] make a bit of difference. If you’re that concerned, follow Tony Hung’s advice and post the policy for your own comments space. But let’s not be all hippy and have a small group of people post a bloggers code and use […]
April 9th, 2007 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
[…] Tony Hung: “Bloggers don’t need a code of conduct, because it isn’t the content of blogs that are in the question. What’s being called into question is the cowardly personal attacks that are sent by email, and left in the comments sections of blogs.” […]
April 9th, 2007 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
[…] everyone realizes this is a load of crap. At Deep Jive interests, Tony notes that folks are really talking about comment policies. Scoble explains why he can’t adhere to the code, and Michael Arrington lists out the various […]
April 9th, 2007 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
[…] Tony Hung argues very cogently that what’s really needed is a comments policy, not a code of conduct, but I think he’s missed the point. If you want to maintain the moral highground when you censor people who have got out of line in your comments section, particularly if you are in an argument with them at the time, or have a “history” with them, then it’s very handy to be able to point to a code that applies not only to them, but to you, and not just when you’re in the comments section. Otherwise you’re clearly at an unfair advantage. If when you point to these “principles” you can also point to the fact that a fair old number of people have subscribed to exactly the same principles, and that they were arrived at by a consensus process, then that defintely increases the height of your moral highground. […]
April 9th, 2007 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
Oh, jim — always with the Matrix references. ;)
t @ dji
April 9th, 2007 at 2:06 pm | Permalink
Josh,
Thanks for stopping by. Always great to see someone who’s been around the block more than once (and by that, I mean someone who’s been blogging for more than a few months).
Interesting post, that one from 2004.
It raises the bigger issue of why we need a code of ethics for bloggers at all, aside from comment policies. But I think what you said in your own comments are key: if they are written up at all, its purpose is to create a sense of integrity for the blog and blogger at hand. Which is particularly important for corporate blogs. Which is because the blogosphere usually demands that people blog ethically (for reasons that are interesting to explroe).
Which, when you think about it, logically means that the code of ethics is really not a tool to encourage civility, but rather as a tool to improve integrity, and therefore, improve readership — because the blogosphere is a self-regulating entity anyway.
If you write crap, are dishonest, like being abusive, are purposely deceitful, are prone to writing ad hominem attacks — well, you’ll find that you won’t have much of an audience at all.
OR, that you’ll be on the receiving end of a wave of negative blogospheric attention.
Long rant, but my point is this: a code of ethics for corporate bloggers are fine, but as you say, we should be clear about their purpose — as a method to introduce blogging and understanding the culture that they’re joining into — rather than as a tool to encourage civility.
t @ dji.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
Heh, yeah, what’s my problem? Or was it the red pill that Neo took? I’m not that big of a geek to remember exactly. Close, but not that close. :)
April 9th, 2007 at 3:12 pm | Permalink
[…] Tony Hung points out this should just a matter of a blog’s comments policy (this is all I’m going to do, too - adjust my comments policy). […]
April 9th, 2007 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
[…] Tony Hung thinks that a policy around comments is good enough. I agree and have started working with our attorneys to draft something like that. I like what Michael has to say: 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. […]
April 9th, 2007 at 4:03 pm | Permalink
[…] has reared its ugly head once again. Its not new. I blogged about it about a week ago, wondering, like today, whether or not it had its use in a self-regulating environment, and more to the point, whether or […]
April 9th, 2007 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
[…] I think Tony Hung has a much better, and simpler idea. Instead of subscribing to some code, simply have a comment policy and spell it out in a visible place on your blog. tags: tim o’reilly, blogger’s code […]
April 9th, 2007 at 4:31 pm | Permalink
[…] Hung neatly summarized the […]
April 10th, 2007 at 4:36 am | Permalink
[…] on the other hand, top western bloggers (Mike Arrington, Dave Taylor, Tony Hung , Jeff Jarvis, Marketing Pilgrim, Ryan Sholin, Mathey Ingram and others) call it a dumb thing, for […]
April 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
[…] as I wrote about initially, were never the problem. Or, if they are, they’ll never identify themselves behind the […]
April 11th, 2007 at 9:54 pm | Permalink
[…] Tony Hung also makes the important point: The people who were responsible for the attacks weren’t bloggers. Or rather, we’ll never know if theyw were bloggers. What we do know as that were anonymous cowards, trolling behind fake email addresses, hurling their vindictives. […]
April 12th, 2007 at 5:31 am | Permalink
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.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
[…] has reared its ugly head once again. Its not new. I blogged about it about a week ago, wondering, like today, whether or not it had its use in a self-regulating environment, and more to the point, whether or […]
June 21st, 2007 at 11:42 am | Permalink
[…] might remember Kathy Sierra’s difficulties after a bunch of well known bloggers allowed comments to run rampa… — thereby allowing some nasty sentiments to ferment, eventually culminating in a few […]
August 11th, 2007 at 1:06 pm | Permalink
[…] Have a comment policy, display it clearly, and stick to it. If your weblog uses WordPress, use the Comment-Policy plugin. […]