Sunday, April 08, 2007
Blogging Code of Conduct
Provocative article in the NY Times about the development of a blogging code of conduct. The article discusses issues we've faced on this site: anonymous comments, the minimum level of civility, duty/right to delete offensive comments, and "cyberbullying." Interestingly, the proposed code was motivated out of a heated online debate that led to a Boulder author, Kathy Sierra, receiving death threats.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
It sounds like a combination of the SPJ's code of ethics and Creative Commons licenses.
...and it makes me want to shut off the anonymous comments. ;-)
I am open to prohibiting anonymous comments. Others?
Aside from some incidents of tension and a few misunderstood comments, has this blog really been negatively affected by the anonymous postings? From what I can see it has increased participation and promoted conversation. Unless there are things going on we all don't know about, I would say -- keep the anonymous comments.
Aside from the occassional snarky comment, I don't think the anonymous postings have detracted from the quality overall. There were plenty of offensive things said prior to the gatekeeping change, and I'm sure there will be offensive things yet to come. I'd rather post to a forum of free but occassionally uncouth speech than a forum of censored but boringly civil speech.
I am in favor of keeping anonymous comments. I just hope that those who wish to post anonymously follow two simple principles. First, Be respectful (one can still be provocative and snarky without attacking someone-see MacLawyer and Unfrozen for examples). Second, respond if you get called out on comment. There is nothing worse then a drive-by poster unwilling to take the heat for a post (many anonymous posters already do this and I know I appreciate it!)
I agree, but mostly I'm just irritated by the inability to respond to specific comments.
Another issue that has been percolating is the upcoming graduation...at that point a large portion of contributors to the Blawg will be moving on. I can't imagine the 3L's wanting to continue pushing the blawg forward, so if there are anonymous posters looking to contribute, this would be a good time to make your presence known.
Fantastic Idea! I think it would be great to elminate all the anonymous posters. That way the blog would be left with a totally homogenous core of just a few posters that would perfectly reflect the overall image of homogeneity at CU Law. It's not like anyone outside the club of regular posters even knows who the the hell is behind most of the clever little handles anyway. I could just as well register and retain the handle anonymous. As far as I know, or care, you are all anonymous bloggers - the only real difference being that a few members of the regular posting elite seem to believe that inundating the blog with a flood of inane banality should somehow translate into a proprietary interest in the blog. Please, I beg you, don't shut us anonymous posters out. Disallowing me the opportunity to add to the drivel at irregular intervals would divest my life of what little meaning it does possess. I don't even want to think about what I might do. Quite simply, this is all I have.
I echo the former annoymous post, but without the snarking, or sarcasm. (Also, this post proves that it's possible to respond to annoymous posts, with just a little additional effort). Keep the blog alive by allowing anoymous posts.
Will do.
If you click "other" and enter a name when you post, you can create a non-anonymous handle without Google account, as I have done hear. Laziness is cool. Since this post is now buried, I am sure this will go unnoticed. Can any of the powers that be add a little tutorial link?
And whoever said that I am respectful is a stupid moron with stupid thoughts that are just stupid. That means you, notjustlaw . (p.s. you are stupid).
Wow, thanks for destroying my self-esteem with yet another well-aimed attack... How will I ever live with myself now.
Post a Comment