The infighting and hostility in the blogosphere best exemplified by the recent Kathy Sierra brouhaha has led some prominent Internet denizens to push for rules that could reduce or eliminate the popular comments sections at blogs.
For those that have forgotten, Kathy Sierra is a programming instructor and blogger who last month had to cancel a speaking engagement at a technology conference in San Diego, California, due to death threats she had received at her website as well some that she had no affiliation with.
With that in mind, some folks want to do something to prevent this type of behavior in the future. As reported by the New York Times Monday (emphasis added throughout):
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.
Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.
The article elaborated:
Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.
Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.
Not to be sarcastic, but would anybody care to comment?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The same Jimmy Wales that cla
April 9, 2007 - 10:10 ET by Evil CapitalistThe same Jimmy Wales that claims it is not such a bad things that Wikipedia provides a platform to left-wing fanatics to lie about and slander everyone the fanatics do not like as in time everything would correct itself? Oh my, isn't it amazing how yet again left can't stand the taste of their own medicine.
Aren't they sort of, um, re
April 9, 2007 - 10:10 ET by dervishAren't they sort of, um, re-inventing the wheel? Some websites are already anything goes, sometimes censored after the fact; some allow only a chosen few to comment; some allow no comment at all. I suppose a cool logo would look nice, but so what?
And I'd be happy about that second-source standard if the MSM would also abide by it.
Yeah, I'll comment. The imp
April 9, 2007 - 10:13 ET by sarcasmoYeah, I'll comment. The importance of anonymous speech rises geometrically in proportion to the growth of big government. Those who want it controlled or curtailed are dangerous. They ignore the plain history of anonymous speech, which played a great part in starting the American Revolution.
JMR
Sarcasmo - I agree but some
April 9, 2007 - 10:29 ET by Dee BunkSarcasmo - I agree but something does need to be done about the creepy people who threaten people's lives. If it's a government blog - then maybe people could be anon or if the blogger themselves are anon then it would be okay, but for anything else the person who runs the blog should decide what they are willing to put up with.
If it were my blog, I'd at least want people registered with a pay e-mail. There are too many nuts out there.
Well, the problem is that m
April 9, 2007 - 11:20 ET by sarcasmoWell, the problem is that many users' computers are literally SO insecure & virus/spyware ridden that they're effectively already "0wn3d" by one or more anonymous entities. None of these users ever wants to believe they're insecure (even when they are -- I know, as I have loads of experience telling them) until it's too-late, but your instinct to make blog rules up to the bloggers instead of up to big govt. is absolutely correct IMO. If a death threat seems serious enough, perhaps a "Dateline NBC" style sting would work, and would negate the "my computer's not secure" defense.
JMR
Sarcasmo - I couldn't agree
April 9, 2007 - 12:46 ET by Dee BunkSarcasmo - I couldn't agree more. It's scary how much information people can get from you. There is this web site that gives the name and address if you have someone's IP and it's not hard to get that. If anything, government should get involved in stopping those people and not allowing people to put other people's personal info out there or to add spyware etc... If someone is going to leave something on my computer, I should have the right to know about it. They should have to warn you before they do it. I finally found a security program that seemed to catch most everything, and unfortunately it causes my computer to act as slow as if it had the spyware on it. You can't win.
Agree, sarky
April 9, 2007 - 10:31 ET by RJAgree, sarky. Another outrageous example of controlling free speech that raises hardly a peep in the media is the elimination of secret union votes.
"It strips 140 million U.S. workers of the right to decide in private whether to unionize. Naturally, it's called the Employee Free Choice Act."
The name could come straight from the pages of "1984."
And it begins. What we need
April 9, 2007 - 10:23 ET by Airforce_5_OAnd it begins.
What we need is those who make these threats be convicted of the crimes they committed. Stating your opinion is not the problem, the problem is allowing bad behavior to continue. Taking someone’s privileges to post on your site is your right. But don’t most sites do this already. I mean we here on this site do have a set of rules we have to follow or get booted.
Is the left just catching up to the concept of regulating your bloggers?
Did I miss something here cause it sure sounds like they are just catching up.
Reduce the U.S. Carbon Footprint. Send Rosie to Iran. Airforce_5_O 04/04/2007
How often are the dems remo
April 9, 2007 - 10:55 ET by JDWHow often are the dems removing nefarious material from sites other than long after the posts were made? When does one encounter the same from conservative URL's?
In other words this does not pertain to the 'atmosphere' of the site, rather the ability to control in general.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
If you are going to whine about spelling... get a life
JD - are you intimating that
April 9, 2007 - 15:19 ET by FastEdJD - are you intimating that the folks who belong to the party of inclusion, who are all about love and peace, would say hateful things about someone who might be ill, or sick - like, maybe Tony Snow?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I am accepting death threat
April 9, 2007 - 16:24 ET by JDWI am accepting death threats as common to the party posters.
At the same time, facts hurt more than the absurdities. Baseball teams will often concede a run for a double play. They have no problem sacrificing the wacko posters in order to destroy dialogue on these sites.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
If you are going to whine about spelling... get a life
The answer is still 42. ACA
April 9, 2007 - 11:09 ET by acaiguanaThe answer is still 42. ACA
Would someone please explain to me since I am so stupid exactly how these so-called 'rules' will be enforced against bloggers and why anyone would care?
Thanks in advance.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Here's what I think, from one
April 9, 2007 - 14:40 ET by FastEdHere's what I think, from one of your guys.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Web Civility & Easter Bonnets
April 9, 2007 - 14:43 ET by Daniel DiRitoWhere is my Easter Bonnet?
While some may see the blogosphere and the behavior of its participants as a new phenomenon, it isn't difficult to find an appropriate predecessor model. That model is found on the streets of any metropolitan area and it is called traffic and the prevalence of road rudeness...or in its extreme...road rage.
Granted, personal attacks and snark on the internet are not likely to lead to fatalities, but if computers had wheels, it certainly would.
Read more on the relationship between blog civility and Easter Bonnets...here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/04/web_civility_and_easter_bonnets.php
Solving the problem can be ac
April 9, 2007 - 15:58 ET by pocomocoSolving the problem can be accomplished by simply disallowing anonymous commenters, and having the means of identifying those who threaten.
The drumbeat of censorship, as promulgated by those who would make such threats, is only a smoke screen for fear of being identified.
There is no need for the draconian measures being proposed, which are nothing more than a camel’s nose called “The equal time provision” starting to nuzzle under the blogosphere tent.
Some creapy guy left personal
April 9, 2007 - 22:51 ET by amberSome creapy guy left personal comments to me on a site a lot like this one. I have a blog, but I do not share it because it is not political. This guy found my blog and left the rudest and creapiest stuff in the comment section of another site. I definately think something should be done, but I do not know what. If we do not arrest people who threaten the wellbeing of our president and his staff how will we get others to behave online? We do not take the security of our people or our conservative government personell seriously. What happens to the protestors who cary signs calling for the death of our president? What happens to people who pelt Carl Rove's vehicle? What happens to newspeople who advocate for the murder of our vice president? I find it particularly insulting for Ariana Huffington to sit there all self righteous when she allows comments about murdering persons in this administration to remain on her blog. So, if we do nothing about the perpetrators of violence and threats who we actually see, how will we regulate those we can not see?
"Bloggers could then pic
April 9, 2007 - 23:24 ET by juspassinthru"Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate."
Then we will need a stinkin' badge?