Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct
When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I suggested some ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't actually put forth a draft that people could subscribe to. We're not quite there yet, but we have a plan.
We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted on bloggingcode.org, and created a badge that sites can display if they want to link to that code of conduct. 
But because we want a period of review, we don't want to finalize that code yet. I've put a draft below (and you'll see it's based closely on the BlogHer Community Guidelines that I linked to last week.) But we're also working with wikia to put the draft through a wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com. (There's an easy to remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC) Please feel free to join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging others to do so. We'll post the final version on bloggingcode.org, along with the html to display the badge and link to the code.
(While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want it to be a moving target once people have signed up for it.)
Here's the first draft:
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.
We also decided we needed an "anything goes" badge for sites that want to warn possible commenters that they are entering a free-for-all zone. The text to accompany that badge might go something like this:
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.
tags:
| comments: 366
| Sphere It
submit: 
Subscribe to Comments on this Entry:
12 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://radar.oreilly.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/9007
I am all for gallantry and warm fuzzy feelings but I really thought that this idea of a bloggers code of conduct has been resigned to the old meme in the sky graveyard. Alas though it appears to have been carried forth by Tim O’Reilly who has ju... Read More
Well, the tempest in a teapot of Kathy Sierra versus Chris Locke and the general incivility of the blogosphere has finally bubbled over to the point where industry luminaries like Tim O'Reilly are proposing a Blogger's Code of Conduct. Agree to the ter... Read More
Now that the obscenity and death threats have started to infest the tech bloggers, media mogul Tim O'Reilly wants everyone in the blogosphere to play nice. He's made some badges to help you know what goes on what sites. Prediction?... Read More
Tim O'Reilly is a perfectly nice, bright guy, who has had a great deal of success with an ever expanding line of Geek and Nerd books and associated products. I like them all and admire his well-deserved success. But Tim O'Reilly has, as seemingly all ... Read More
The idea of a formal Code of Conduct is taking form for some people, and resembles a pile of shit for some others. Tim O’Reilly has published a draft Code of Conduct on his weblog, which makes interesting reading if nothing else. Here follow my t... Read More
While I don't think it smacks of censorship because there's no government action, I don't like the communitarian trend of promoting the idea that bloggers are responsible for what commenters say: The preliminary recommendations posted by Mr. Wales and ... Read More
Well doing my usual glance across the internet I cam across this Nice News Story following a “Blogger” who has posted a Blogger’s Code of Conduct. Where by Blogs are meant to carry certain badges to either agree with or disagree with ... Read More
Wendy of Girl on the Right authored this in response to the weird "Bloggers Making Rules Of Conduct For Blogging" thing thats going around, and since we really couldn't say it any better than her, we've Katic Couric-ed her article,... Read More
Like Oliver Kamm, I've been thinking about this this blogger Code of Conduct. 1. Blogs are but one item on the varied menu of information... Read More
Estos d√≠as hay un debate en Internet sobre la aplicaci√≥n de c√≥digos √©ticos a los blogs. La idea parti√≥ de Tim O’Reilly con un compromiso de siete puntos para evitar hechos como los ocurridos a finales de marzo, cuando Kathy Sierra, una blog... Read More
Consistency, fairness and making people learn to deal with hurt feelings like grown ups. These are not values for the bloggers that follow Tim O'Reilly's guidelines: We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that: is being used... Read More
Looks like the blowup between Chris Locke and Kathy Sierra irked Tim O’Reilly enough to put this together: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html As much a rock star as Tim is, I’ll go on record as saying I don̵... Read More
The excellent Index on Censorship has emailed me and a few other bloggers with some questions on [the code of conduct for blogs proposed by Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales]....My answer is this. I would not sign up to this... Read More
In the last couple of weeks I had someone come on this site and post, via anonymous comments, a series of diatribes that were a serious attack on another individual and company. The information was detailed but utterly unsubstantiated. The tone was ext... Read More
Comments: 366
You created badges.
You actually created badges.
I just can't believe you created badges.
Honestly, I think the badges are a little hokey. The guidelines are okay, though I think it's worth making a reciprocal commitment; that is, not only will commenters be subject to the policy, but so too will you.
Interesting idea. A lot of the points in this draft could apply to web sites in general, not just blogs. Especially forums.
i like this; however, i think it's important to keep in mind that some bloggers may agree with a code like this in principle but may, for whatever reason, want to opt out of or amend one of the articles. for example, for obvious reasons (i'm a therapist) i think it's important for my blog to have the option of posting anonymously. i'm also wondering whether this could be more of a guideline than a code. i don't think we want to bureaucratize the internet.
I like the idea, but I agree with other commenters about the fact that many bloggers would want to customize the code to their specific site and ideals. Maybe the code could be something like Creative Commons licenses where there are different levels to choose from.
Since I nurture cloaked personalities--Chinese students back home, US military constrained by chain-of-command, and Twenty Major who needs to use the C-word--I feel I need to respect the occasional need for anonymity wrapped in a screen name. I would seem hypocritical not to understand the need for anonymity.
Since my blogs track (and embargo) users by IP, allow me to block unwanted phrases (more than 1034 blocked at the moment), I wonder about the usefulness of a blanket ban on anonymity.
"We don't need no stinking badges!"
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Seriously though, I think the "no anonymous posting" bit is going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people. Blogging isn't really a conversation without comments and any sort of verification method for validating e-mail addresses is just another source of friction that's going to discourage people from commenting. For something like forum software, where a person is making a longer term commitment to a site, sure, I can see validating and e-mail address. For a quick blog comment, I just can't see a lot of people going to be willing to go through all that trouble.
While I like the intention here... I have to say I disagree with the implementation.
This is too specific and tries to wrap online communities under too wide a blanket.
I'd prefer to see something more akin to a voluntary (and I DO mean voluntary) rating system for the web, similar to the one being used by the video game industry.
That way, blogs that may contain potentially offensive material and comments could be rated 'M-Mature' say, while blogs containing happy bunnies and chirping birds could be rated 'E-Everyone' or what have you. Leaving the vast majority of the internet with essentially a 'T-Teen'.
Throw a corresponding bit of meta data into the header and you could even filter out such things without much trouble.
Hi there
I'd love to know what people think about the code Segala was also talking about a little while ago. A post where they talk about this is at http://segala.com/blog/do-we-want-a-code-for-blogs/
2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
If blogging is international, then I would disagree with this point.
In the authoritarion and cruel regimes, if one wants to get himself hanged, only then he would in person criticize the regime. Blogging is the great and unique way of protest for the oppressed people against such regimes.
What do people understand by civility? They'll see the badge and expect, according to most dictionary definitions:
1. Formal or perfunctory politeness
2. The act of showing regard for others
I suspect that 1) would be sneered at and 2) is not how the world works. Suppose someone were doing something that harmed others. Would we be required to show regard for them?
Maybe 'civility' has a better ring to it in the USA (I'm UK-based). An American, well-known in blogging circles, tried to raise the civility issue with a European audience a while back and it went down like a lead balloon. Even worse, this same person became quite uncivil in the ensuing discussion.
The ad-hominem thing is idealistic and impractical. We do take people's personal circumstances into account. I'd settle for 'ad-hominem abuse', or similar. Or just drop it, the other elements in that clause cover it.
The only other thing that bothers me is the business of making personal contact before writing. This is not always practical or desirable.
I like civility but prefer the "anything goes" badge, so how about "Civility Enforced with Dy-no-mite?"
Censorship is a slippery slope when you are dealing with bright people who want to take legitimate but mean-spirited shots at others. I hope these efforts, which are needed, do not dumb down the debates.
Human values cannot be contained within rules. The complexity of situations, language and unknown future conditions make rules a mockery of values. Further rules have an inherent assumption that people are not trusted to act on good values.
There are aspects of the code (mainly the first bullet point bit) that is great and I'd happily sign up to.
However the rest of it is just too tightly defined - as has already been mentioned the anonymous comments things would be a deal breaker.
A better 'code' would be a very brief set of core blogosphere values instead of a tightly defined code of conduct.
Some of these comments would make excellent additions to the relevant wikia talk page, for those who think the idea is worth pursuing but would need a bunch of changes first.
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Blogger%27s_Code_of_Conduct
Note that you don't have to log in to leave comments there ;-)
I commented that to be widely adopted a CoC would probably want versions and variants rather than a binary approach, that the anonymity clause could be expanded so that moderating anonymous comments before they became visible would be an acceptable alternative, and also that OpenID authentication should be a valid alternative to leaving an email address.
I'm a little annoyed by the symbols that are used here. It's maybe because I'm not american or because I have buddhist sympathies but using a sheriff star and "enforce" civility is not the way I want to see the blogosphere evolve.
I might be a naive hippy :) but I would prefer a positive image as a symbol of respect between bloggers instead of a symbol of repression.
I would prefer something like the jainism symbol can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jainism_logo.png symbolises equality, self control and non-violence
This is ridiculous. "Voluntary code of conduct" give me a break. And the badges just top it.
Reminds me of some of the things america has done at its worst. Commies. Terrorists. Anonymous commenters. This makes me angry.
Tim OíReilly notoriously stated silent on the fact that folks shouldnít be convicted in the court of public opinion. Likewise, if he were to take the high road, he might have put money where his mouth (say $5K) is by contributing to charities that prevent abuse against women. However, you wonít see this happen as his sole goal is pressÖ
If you don't like my blog because you don't think it's civil...or for whatever reason really, then don't read it, don't link to it, etc. Then my nasty, uncivil blog will die into obscurity and that will be that.
No code of conduct needed.
Ooops... lost the rest of my comment.
The issue is not civility; the issue is accountability and responsibility. By creating the "enforced civility" concept, you've conflated a number of issues (for example, copyright) with the accountability issue which may seem neat and tidy, but actually comes down to "We reserve the right to delete comments" because there's no actual accountability enshrined in the code for the person running a blog... no anonymous comments, yet no requirement for no anonymous blogs.
But then this entire discussion is basically about the best way to nail jelly to the ceiling to stop it being used in a food fight. It's going to be a messy failure and even if you do manage to do it, there'll still be enough jelly around to start a food fight, and now there's a hammer and nails which can get thrown around.
Tim OÔøΩReilly notoriously stayed silent on the fact that folks shouldnÔøΩt be convicted in the court of public opinion. Likewise, if he were to take the high road, he might have put money where his mouth (say $5K) is by contributing to charities that prevent abuse against women. However, you wonÔøΩt see this happen as his sole goal is pressÔøΩ
What a load of bull. People should be civil to each other without it having to be 'enforced'.
Who is going to enforce this code of conduct?
You'll be wanting a regulatory body next, and all bloggers and commenters to register, carry cards or wear badges. The internet is free, and should stay that way. There are ways to trace even an anonymous commenter's IP these days.
"They came for the commenters, and I said nothing because I did not comment."
I would revise #6 about "trolls" to read as follows: "Ignoring public attacks is often a good way to contain them. But simply deleting their comments and letting them know repeatedly that their derogatory or inappropriate voice is not welcome is the best way to contain them."
I see a problem with #2, "We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person", because there are things a blogger actually can't say in person -- because of corporate affiliation that limits one's ability to speak openly, for example. I think that #1, about taking responsibility for our own words, is enough, and #2 can be omitted.
Timmy wants a safe place where PR flacks can propagate their lies and VC's get a good return on their foolish investments.
You do of course realize that #5 is in fact opposed to itself, and is functionally impossible.
Who is going to verify the "validity" of an email address? You going to send an email and wait for a reply every time someone comments? What's that going to prove? Autoresponders anyone?
As well, if you allow an alias instead of a real name...that's *anonymous*.
How about not letting knee-jerk reaction to teh dramah create things like this?
WHO ENFORCES THIS?!
Take: "4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action."
Isn't that how we got this tempest-in-a-Techmeme in the first place? Someone felt they were unfairly attacked, "took action", and a whole lot of other people then got unfairly attacked.
In general, every whining thin-skinned A-lister says they are "unfairly attacked" and "takes action".
This is like proclaiming "Go to war only in self-defense". We've seen how well that's worked.
I'm glad you currently allows anonymous comments. I've gotten a lot of value from anonymous comments I've read on this and many other blogs.
Isn't this issue covered by rule #1? That is, it's fine for a blog owner to allow anonymous comments as long as they go about deleting them as necessary.
I understand the things that have led to this, however:
I won't allow anything I find unacceptable on my blog. I know unacceptable when I see it without needing others to give me a badge for accepting their definition.
Further.
* Civility, is a trait which, like intelligence can't be enforced.
* My respect for people's privacy trumps the desire to have them register.
* Not everyone who has something worth hearing is prepared to register.
* It is sometimes it is worth engaging with people passionately disagree with us. Sometimes these people are trolls. Engaging with trolls - never say never.
Tim, We've worked this way in our little corner of Cyberspace for months now.
We had another local issues forum that is sponsored by our local newspaper. It is basically a wild west free for all with anonymous posters and a ton of nastiness. We created a forum with two simple rules and we've run with it ever since. The quality of our postings has gone way up and the discussion has been expansive.
There are some people who refused to participate in our forum because it supposedly abused free speech. I have to say that the posters participating in our forum have the freedom they desire and the discussion goes on. We've been very productive with 44,000+ posts.
I support the call for civility. I ask my neighbors who post on the forum that I moderate to consider themselves in the same room with the people they are speaking with. That goes a long way to keeping the discussion civil.
"Blogging" Code of Conduct --> "Social Media" Code of Conduct: it's not just about blogs, it's about any user-generated content - it's about community.
The badges idea is so, I don't know.... HIGH SCHOOL.
How about I just let "anything go" without putting a nutty badge on my site?
I think your idea is going in the right direction, however it is getting very close to censorship. The very principle that makes blogging what it is revolves around free speech.
Should someone advertantly or inadvertantly post something that falls under the criminal code definition of a hate crime, or illegal activity it will be either edited or deleted and an email sent to the poster. Beyond that... ANYTHING GOES.
For the most part we aren't children. I think common sense should prevail. Anyone who is going to allow hateful comments, threats etc etc etc on their site isn't going to sign on to any "Moral Majority" led code of conduct, nor will they necessarily post a BADGE stating one is entering an "anything goes zone."
I could keep going, but I think, when time permits this week I will just blog my response. What scares me is I am in almost total agreement with Scoble for a change. OUCH!
It's simply unbelievable what's going on here.
So-called "community standards" are merely the latest example of the agents of normalcy and entrenchment subconsciously attempting to organize, dictate, tame and pacify.
As always the salvos come as a reactionary countermeasure to some unusually extreme example of the worst of human nature.
As always each one of this "community" of normalcy has their own ax to grind.
As always with "community standards", new attempts are made to classify and control speech. And parody, satire, dark humor, as always, are feared and maligned implicitly if not explicitly.
As always, the "community" wants nothing but the best, they want to save us all from ourselves.
The only surprise to me is that so far the "community" hasn't figured out a way to tie pedophilia in with all of this. But don't worry, that will happen soon enough.
The old media dictator is dead. Long live our new media overlords.
O'Reilly talks about "we" - I wonder who he means by that? There are a few of his pet peeves in there, so it seems fair he will be one of the arbiters of what's civil or inappopriate on other people's websites. This reeks of prohibition and candlelight marches.
O'Reilly is a control freek. Do a little checking on the guy, look at how he responded to challenges to the exclusivity of his events on Om Malik's discussion board a couple of years ago. Suppose his board of standards decided he was uncivil, I wonder if he'd abide by their judgment. And he doesn't say what the penalties are. Banishment? Trial by angry mob? Lynching?
Is this post civil? I haven't threatened anyone, I mean no one any harm. Let's see what happens to it, let's see how Tim O'Reilly applies his justice.
Suggest that we add option and encouragement for those with blog conflict to engage in online mediation. Mediate.com is available to provide mediators.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I see no guaranteed right of distribution in this. No newspaper has ever been required to cede editorial control to its readers to be in compliance with this amendment.
If someone has something mean to say there is no reason at all they can't go start their own blog, slap an "anything goes" symbol on it, and have at it. How is this a free speech issue?
Sigh. It seems, as certain mini-moguls become more affluent, they have more time on their hands to wander about the world shoveling seaweed against the tide. These badges are fine with me. They are actually sort of slick. Will they make a bean's worth of difference. Not so you'd notice.
The only thing that will be noticed out of this will be a bit more attention to Tim. And that's fine with me also. I think he's done a vast amount of meaningful and useful work in his time. And will probably do more.
"How is this a free speech issue?"
Exactly right, Jim, IMO. Phony issue, contrived to present as victims those who would play at or outside the boundaries of unacceptable behaviour.
"parody, satire, dark humor, as always, are feared and maligned implicitly if not explicitly." By implicitly, read "never restricted" - another phony attempt to set up a straw man, the better to avoid dealing with the actual issue: taking responsibility for a**holes.
"they want to save us all from ourselves". Give me a break. The interest comes from protecting ourselves and our own communities - this is a right to bear arms issue, and the formation of a community that shares the same values.
I think it's awfully telling that male A-list bloggers feel the need to stifle conversation on the Internet in the name of protecting female C-list bloggers.
This little lady doesn't need you looking out for me.
But now that YOU've gotten rich off the Internet, Mr. O'Reilly, it's apparently time to close the frontier... and keeping the wimminfolk safe is an excuse that's hard to argue with, unless you're a troll.
a blogger code of conduct would be like herding hornets - nice idea but painful to all in execution
Good job, Tim. I'm glad something structured is being worked on and hope that it helps improve the Web.
Mostly good. Here are comments on a few things I'm not comfortable with:
I don't like requiring people to provide a valid e-mail address. I try to keep my working address known by as few people as possible, have gotten virtually no spam at it as a result, like to keep it that way, and understand the desire of others for the same.
In many cases I would rather respond to knowingly false or fallacious statements than delete them.
If I delete a troll's or spammer's comment, I do so without notification. I don't want to give them even the satisfaction of a stub that says "Troll's comment deleted."
You're all right who said the anonymity bit needs to be optional. I realized that as soon as I posted last night, but I was already in bed, so I figured I'd fix it in the morning. Alas, I should have gotten back up.
As far as this being a guideline, I think that that's all it is. What I really think is useful is giving notice to participants in a community that there are standards. Obviously, any site can publish its own standards, and anyone is free to take off on these. But the idea of the "stinkin' badges" is to make it easy for people to say "I want to use these guidelines" without having to set up their own guidelines page.
As far as the quality of the badges -- I agree that they're a bit hokey, but they seemed like a good place to start. The idea came from Creative Commons, where simply putting a badge is a link to a set of statements about copyright. Perhaps text-style badges like CC uses would indeed be less hokey. We'll think on it.
Seth asked: "Who enforces this?" The answer is, the site owner, who can delete comments and ban commenters, or moderate them before posting. The "we" in the case of Radar is the set of people who post here. On some other blog, it's the individual or group who runs the blog. It's not like this is some law that's enforced on other people's sites. It's just a statement about what you'll allow on your own blog.
And it doesn't say anywhere that this is about "stifling conversation." There are a number of comments here that fall into the "troll" category.
I'm leaving them in as data points about sentiment, but don't feel the need to respond to them. There are also a number of comments with ad hominem attacks that I'd delete on some other post, but will probably allow here because this post is trying to suss out sentiment on what is a controversial issue. (Paul's "Timmy wants a safe place where PR flacks can propagate their lies and VC's get a good return on their foolish investments." is a good example.) If paul thinks that is the purpose of this blog, he's welcome not to read it. If he kept up with comments like that, he'd make himself unwelcome.
mcdtracy -- you clearly misunderstand. I'm not proposing to be the arbiter of anyone else's website, just my own. I'm looking to provide an easy way for bloggers who feel similarly about taking more of a stand on uncivility to do so.
Requiring civility does not mean censorship.
I'd be curious as to what you found offensive in my comments to Om about exclusive events -- I'd be happy for you to quote and explain your objection here. Saying I'm a "control freek" without justifying that accusation is something that I wouldn't do, and per my "code," I'm suggesting as moderator of this space that I'd rather you made a stronger case for your position than simply making personal accusations that aren't even substantiated by a link to the comments you say you found offensive.
"Requiring civility does not mean censorship."
Please explain how that would be possible; how can you make people "be civil" (whatever that means) absent some sort of coercive force or action---that is, censorship? It sounds like you're trying to draw a square circle.
Tim, frank, open, and honest discussion is often messy, and there's no way around that. Instead of codes of conduct, perhaps it would be more productive to remind people that "free speech" is not the same as "consequence-free speech" and that, as adults, they should have developed thicker skins by now.
I'm relieved to see Tim say all that, and I think it addresses most of the points I covered in my last blog post! (see sethop.com) It's strange taking part in this highly fragmented conversation. No wonder I tend to stay out of anything "current"...but it's past 4am over here in NZ, so I'm very much going to bed now.
Harry, would it be censorship if someone came to a party at your house, got drunk and disruptive, and you asked them to leave? Censorship to me implies preventing meaningful discourse, or as Wikipedia notes, "a group controlling certain information is using this control improperly or for its own benefit, or preventing others from accessing information that should be made readily accessible (often so that conclusions drawn can be verified)."
I mean who really cares? This is ridiculous. Here come the blog police. Isn't there something more meaningful you could be spending your time on? Let's get a little perspective here. It's just a blog. It's something that 80% of the rest of the world could care less about. It all comes across as so pretentious and self important. Deal with the riff-raff how ever you want to, do it quietly and move on. It's part of life.
i find that badge & "Civility Enforced" a really negative way to look at this problem. it presumes that civility is not the norm, and must be enforced. it presumes the guilt of your readers, and warns them that they will be watched, and punished if they cross the line.
like wearing a lapel button that says: "I am not a murderer."
why not presume & expect civility? (i certainly do, on my blog and the ones I read ... 99.9% of net interactions are civil).
then make your badges & codes accordingly. ie: "Civility is Here" or whatever you like. But to say "Civility Enforced" seems to me a misrepresentation (a bad misrepresentation) of what the blogosphere is really like, and the "need" for enforcing.
Before there was a debate about what the blogging community can or should do in reaction to Kathy's predicament, you had already posted these codes to your web page. Can we table these for a few months to digest what happened, give time for us to cool off, and think about alternative solutions?
I have no doubt that you have the best intentions in mind, but this seems like the wrong solution and the wrong method to reach that solution. Hell, I'm not even sure what problem this is attempting to solve -- all the more reason not to rush to an answer.
This whole idea will be tossed around for a few days while different bloggers comment on it, then it will be forgotten about and never mentioned again.
hugh -- very good comment about the negative tone of the civility enforced badge. I think you've nixed that one for me. We'll think of something else.
I think trolls have value, actually. We value satire as a literary form, do we not? Trolls often have a nugget of truthiness in them, even if they're gruffly written.
And this isn't a face to face conversation, so don't treat it as such. Part of the great thing about the internet is that it's liberating from the constraints of niceness we'd see in meatspace. I guess my feeling is if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire.
This Code of Conduct would have had no effect on what happened to me. I had a comment policy in place, and deleted the threats that came directly to my blog. But if people are determined to hate, harass, intimidate, or threaten you, it's easy enough to do on other blogs.
I do think that people should be able to have their own comment policy with impunity--I've had one clearly stated for the last 6 months--but anyone who would support a code of conduct doesn't *need* one, and anyone who we *wish* would adopt it never would.
I have absolutely no faith that anything can be improved. People have become too desensitized and accepting. Worse, way too many people encourage the worst of it. The thousands of emails I've gotten since this happened paint a very depressing story.
I've been nothing but optimistic for the last two years of my blog, but I was wrong. I'm glad people are having this conversation, but the more I hear... the more it appears that there is only one solution -- the one I've been hearing the most -- "grow a pair."
What is the difference between this code of conduct and a site's Terms of Service? Must one of these two warts appear on each blog?
As currently written, a blog post that is a parody or satire technically may violate the code, but still adhere to the spirit of the code. I suggest changing the following
"is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person"
to
"is libelous; or is knowingly false, is ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person except if the content is satire or parody."
I think it's absolutely fine to set the standards for the blog one administrates. While I don't happen to agree with all of the standards Tim laid out, he's not proposing that everyone adopt his standards.
People who break the law (by threatening, for example) should be liable to legal sanction. Of course, it may not always be easy to track down lawbreakers.
Overall, I think the anonymous nature of the internet is a good thing, as it lets people express themselves who would get in trouble for doing so under their own name (whistle blowers, political activists in repressive countries, etc.). Sadly, this anonymity is an also invitation to bad behavior.
Kathy, I am disgusted by the way anonymous people have threatened and harassed you. I hope you can draw some hope from the fact that there has been a huge outpouring of support for you.
"except if the content is satire or parody."
That's the get-out-of-anything loophole, employed by those who trot out those words as an excuse to be cruel or worse.
Those who are skilled in satire consider it both an art and difficult:
http://www.thehappytutor.com/2007/04/tips_for_satiri.html
I think people who do *real* artful satire and parody are probably insulted by those diluting, misusing, and abusing those words.
I do think you're right Aaron -- satire and parody must be protected -- and we should also try to protect those two words (satire and parody) from being co-opted to enable virtually anything, by anyone.
Tim, I realize you're overwhelmed, and thanks for responding, but that being said, if this is just for blog comments, it's rather pointless. Note the particular blogs which set off this fracas considered themselves to be satire and parody, and hence it was simply not applicable to have a delicate civility policy. In fact, if you came up with a "this is satire" badge, that might be a halfway decent idea (though not nearly as a publicity generating, I suspect).
Is there really a crying problem with nice blog-owners needing assistance in telling their commenters to play nice? They usually don't have too much trouble doing so.
But when you write (my emphasis): "When someone who is publishing comments OR BLOG POSTINGS that are offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible--see above) ..."
NO THIS WON'T HAPPEN! Because an A-list bully can, and will, rain down abuse with impunity on anyone "below" them, and peers generally won't want to get into a fight for someone who is powerless. So that part of your proposal is at best wishful thinking, and at worst, cruel posturing.
A system which runs on attention-mongering, demagoguery, and too many infamously abusive tin-pot egotists accountable to nobody but a handful of other BigHeads, is never going to be "civil" from saying it should be (no matter how elaborately it's said).
You created badges? What's next, a blacklist?
I haven't required the services of a nanny since I was four years old.
Isn't it a given that people should behave and conduct themselves as they would in person and that we ostracize those who don't? We also have to consider that some people do conduct themselves a certain way in person and just because they also do so online should mark them for censure.
Again, as with so many things no-a-days, whose parents didn't do their job here?
Tim...
where were you last year when myself, Nancy White, Bill Anderson, Grace Davis, and Jimmy Bice were part of a panel on civility in the blogosphere at SXSW Interactive.
In fact, the only people who showed up for that panel were a few folks who ran message boards who wanted to share what actions they took about it..
Thing is, this reeks a bit of hypocracy. The incivility has been going on for a very long time, and has ran off a number of women--including Peggy Phillip, a Memphis-based tv executive who used to blog regularly. She got death threats and was forced to stop blogging.
Are you calling for this now only because the incivility has hurt someone you know, Tim? This is a very big place out here, and it would have been very nice if you'd have been part of the civility conversation a bit earlier in the game.
Tim, I respect and understand the idea behind this. Because of my experience and background in dealing with non-anon expression and accountability, this brings up a flood of concerns and suggestions.
After 15 years in management at The WELL, in a context where there is close to no anonymity, paid participation, and twenty two years of debate about what Stewart Brand's famous WELL aphorism, "You Own Your Own Words" or YOYOW really means to participants and volunteer conference hosts, some things that seem simple turn out to be more complex.
At The WELL we see an astonishing range of civility and bluntness among our conferences, where the same people play rougher in different arenas. We also see teasing that doesn't bother the participants who are pals but looks rude to strangers. You probably would not find any hosts willing to put up a sherriff badge. If you go back to the model of hosting a dinner party, the range of styles and behaviors are almost infinite.
The sherriff badge is pretty much asking for rebellion and mockery. Aside from that, it's a cold image to present in terms of our wanting to welcome guest contributors, friends and community. Obviously that varies depending no blog popularity, and the graphic can change.
Perhaps a slightly more flexible and thoughtful commitment, and a more inviting badge of hostship would help as an addition, or even a replacement, to the wild-west sherriff stance.
Requiring an email address in the world of free and disposable addesses is a little hurdle, but we all know it is not an identity guarantor. Getting a credit card, money, mailing address, etc. adds a little more hurdle, but at some level pseudonimity is still in the mix. If the hurdle and the peer scrutiny are at a good level, people still bother to join and behave with accountability, but some will still be assholes. My feedback: don't over-idealize the beneficial effects of non-anonymity, though they can be powerful, and don't define anybody with an email address as non-anonymous, either. Too much potential confusion!
Taking responsibility for the comments of others is very interesting. This is where it makes sense to look at the legal context. I don't think all bloggers can be expected to understand defamation law, frankly. Is it fair to ask them to say they will behave with the liability of a publisher or editor? (I'm looking forward to discussing with some legal experts!) Not wanting to make new laws doesn't make existing real world laws go away, and we can't forget that.
Also, there is the question of time. Does the sherriff badge mean comments must be pre-moderated, or is there an assumption that spammy trollish crap could go up and and may be looked at or decided on later?
Backchannel private communications can be helpful, but it's a judgement call when to do them, and promising to always do them can set you up for being gamed by a group who demand more backchannel attention than you can give, for example. Maybe unconsciously, maybe not.
Finally -- because this has gotten long and I have got to get some work done -- check this out, from
http://www.well.com/confteam/hosting.html
(Adapted from great advice from WELL host John Hoag and others, and intended for application within a non-anon environment):
Whatever rule you make, someone will eventually question it -- even if it is "no rules at all." The most casual glance at human history shows that humans love making rules and arguing over them...
There are, however, ways to avoid some of the more common rule pitfalls. If you feel your place needs a special rule, take care to consider its fairness before implementing it and try to imagine how it might be circumvented. Words are a malleable medium, and they can be made to say things by inference, innuendo, and ambiguity which are very hard to pinpoint. Suppose you set up a place in which you wanted everyone to be nice to each other, and you made a rule saying just that. You might have a difficult time enforcing it because language can be made to imply something unkind even while saying something ostensibly respectful. Excessive niceness, through hyperbole, can even convey an insult. Rather than creating a rule, you may want to depend on the direct yet respectful approach, calmly asking people to clarify whether an insult was actually meant, and making it possible to save face.
Sorry for blurting out a mini-tome. I have been stewing in these issues for eons now. Thanks for your thoughfulness and best luck.
Gary, in my experience, there are many people who fear cutting off offensive comments lest they be accused of censorship. It seems to me reasonable to make it easy for people who don't want offensive comments on their blog to have an easy way to notify people before they post that offensive comments will be deleted.
Many sites already have terms of service or codes of conduct. This is just a way to start a conversation about a widely agreed set that people can use without having to make up their own.
Hopefully, from the discussion over on wikia, we can come up with a modular, useful set, associated with a set of simple badges, that will be much like what Creative Commons does for copyright, expressing mores with common language.
Maybe it's a dumb idea. It will either work or it won't.
Enforcing civility and censorship. I recently encountered this nexus when I had to ban an insightful but abusive commenter. He was the type of person who seems compelled to be abusive. It's OK to ban those folks but don't think it's not a form of censorship - it is.
I'm concerned people are confusing two different problems: death threats are illegal and need police follow up. Mean-spirited comments are hard to regulate effectively, regardless of any policies, because the line is subjective, unclear, and very dependent on context (e.g. discussion of a savage serial murderer vs a new cell phone).
Tim,
I suspect good luck without seeing my face and hearing my tone could make the words "good luck" come off as snarky and rude. Hence you can see one of the problems with blogs, comments, email, and other forms of written communications. Without the benefit of some type of personal interaction, things can (and often do) go sideways.
Attempting to regulate or 'herd' mass behavior is, at best, an exercise that won't have much luck. I worry about the "we" part of your post. Who is the we? How will "we" amend, change, waive, etc, all the things that will come out of this?
Every person is responsible for the actions they do and those they have control over. Like you, I delete attacks, nasty comments, trolls, etc. I do that because I am responsible for my little corner of the world.
A "warning, this is a free for all" actually applies to much of the planet we live on.
A sincere "Good Luck" is certainly in order as maybe, through the mere discussion of the problem, the notion of personal responsibility will get elevated to a higher priority.
Rick Segal
http://ricksegal.typepad.com
If it were like Creative Commons, we could sign on to parts that we agreed with. I'm fundamentally against the lack of anonymous commenting... there are people that, due to their position in employment (e.g., govt., etc.) or society that just can't comment on the record.
Kathy: "I have absolutely no faith that anything can be improved. People have become too desensitized and accepting. Worse, way too many people encourage the worst of it. The thousands of emails I've gotten since this happened paint a very depressing story.
I've been nothing but optimistic for the last two years of my blog, but I was wrong. I'm glad people are having this conversation, but the more I hear... the more it appears that there is only one solution -- the one I've been hearing the most -- "grow a pair."
I don't think that's what people are saying at all -- and perhaps what you're suffering is a result of too optimistic a view of this world.
If people are desensitized, it's because we hear about torture and barbarity every day in the real world -- what we face here online is nothing more than a pale shadow of the human condition.
I do think this has been more of a control issue than anything else. And again, this comment thread and the discussion associated with this post has ended up conflating two different types of events.
The first has to do with threats. Tim, your idea that we should demand an apology and retraction for a threat implies that the threat isn't that serious a thing.
If a serious threat occurs, anonymous or not, it should be investigated by the police. If it's not a serious threat, which the retraction would seem to indicate, then we should not waste the time of the police.
Then there are the people who create 'offensive' material. No one can judge what is offensive for another. In this regard, people don't necessarily have to 'grow a pair', as much as they have to learn this is a world where everyone plays, and some people don't play nice. Or even define 'nice' the same way.
This whole thing has been badly botched. Kathy, if you had threats that scared you, you should have gone to the police and not said anything until the investigation was finished. You didn't though, and took this to the weblogging world, and that, unfortunately, caused you additional pain when someone smelled blood in the water and decided to make matters worse.
You also made a mistake yourself, by drawing in four other people into a very serious accusation, and focusing more attention on their actions than the actual so-called threats.
You didn't even acknowledge that the person who wrote the 'threat' in your comments, did so using their name and email address, and came in and apologized later.
Are you still afraid to leave your house? What happened with the investigation? What have the police said?
This is all different than putting a badge on one's site and demanding others adhere to our standards of acceptability.
I'm sorry but this whole thing does seem more like the powerful abusing the less powerful, as much as it has anything to do with 'civility'.
I started getting interested in this until I realized that none of this stuff matters at all. Banning anonymous comments does no good because pseudonyms are almost as bad (you still can't hold anyone responsible for their comments in a meaningful way) and you still have perfectly anonymous bloggers who can harass and link to your site, like happened to Kathy Sierra. Whatever you do to run your site in a civil manner cannot be enforced on another blog, so what's the point? Her harassers probably knew what good conduct was, and ignored it.
Here is what I would like the blogger code of conduct to be: a guide on how not to be a dirtbag blogger (TOS REQUIRED, no memory hole content deletion), and a guide on how not to be a dirtbag commenter (no ad-hominem, definition of trolling.) A code of conduct would identify "good" community members and "bad" community members. Banning anonymous comments is not relevant. The content of anonymous comments you should suppress is relevant. The effect on civility by having anonymous comments is relevant for policy discussions, not conduct discussions. I don't want rules telling me how to run my blog, I want community standards of acceptable behavior as a blogging community member. Don't tell me to not have anonymous comments, tell me to disallow personal attack anonymous comments for example. What is civil and how to enforce civility are two separate issues.
btw, the number one rule on this list should be that terms of service are listed and abided by on EVERY blog.
"3. We connect privately before we respond publicly." --- sounds good but in practice the problem is that there is bad will and given person doesn't want to give up badmouthing that they commited in past - nothing helps. What to do then?
Kathy, the code itself wouldn't have had an impact. But if more a-listers had stood up and taken a stand for civility *before* this, maybe Chris would have thought twice. I blame Chris's lack of judgment on the Anshe Chung thing; where a-listers pretended to care about "free speech" by running virtual rape footage on their blogs after it had been pulled from YouTube. It was disgusting and shameful, a crass play to get more page views. Just as the French are banning "happy slapping", a-listers need to make it clear that they are not willing to play that game. Chris Locke created the equivalent of a "virtual happy slapping forum". He should have the right to do that, but the rest of us who think it's a pathetic thing to do should not be afraid to say so.
Looks like trackbacks aren't working, I responded on my own site (without contacting Tim first).
This is clipped from a post on my blog:
///////////
THE BLOGGERS CODE OF CONDUCT: A Simple Test
1. ìDo online as you would in person.î
Before every post or comment you make, ask yourself whether you would be comfortable shouting it out loud from a well-lit lectern in an auditorium full of 300 people that included, friends, family, and a whole lot of strangers. If the answer is ìNo,î revise and retest before posting.
I think that really sums it up. It leaves plenty of room for freedom of speech, and leaves ìregulationî in the hands of individual bloggers and readers. That is to say, if youíre comfortable shouting out offensive stuff in a roomful of people, expect to be heckled, and then the auditorium to empty quickly.
//////////
EDIT: In terms of comment regulation and deleting/censoring offensive comments - I'm not sure how to tackle that one. How about Digg style flags for comments - i.e.: community moderation? Flag an offensive comment as such, and when enough of your readers have done so, it disappears, or is viewable only on an "View Offensive Material" page. Sure - this could be gamed, but presumably restricting voting to registered members or something would keep it in the hands of legitimate users.
Edit: Link to my full post:
http://techfold.com/2007/04/09/an-alternative-to-oreillys-politeness-manifesto-the-un-code/
The only point to having a policy is so that when there is a conflict you have something to point to other than the admin's personal judgement in deleting posts. Unfortunately, all of the guidelines listed in this draft require the admin to use her judgement. So there is no way to defuse that argument, and blog admins will just continue to have to suck it up -- when someone crosses the line, you have to be the "bad guy" and censor them.
But poking the trolls is so much fun. ;-)
How are you gonna define a "valid email address?" I don't know if an address is valid or not. I'm sure not going to email it before approving a comment I like. I'm not going to force my readers to register. I totally don't blame readers from entering fake email addresses on blogs. I mean, I don't do anything with email addresses, but there are enough spam harvesters around, I don't blame new readers for not trusting me.
While I have serious doubts about the what and why of the whole code of conduct idea, I fail to see how "lack of civility" connects with including or linking to content that "infringes upon a copyright or trademark." IMO, the intellectual property angle is completely irrelevant here.
Tim, I do appreciate your intention to make the Internet a safer and more respectful discussion space. But I have a suggestion for you: stop trying to brand and own the process. It's turning people off, and it can't be owned anyway.
Please consider reframing this. Instead of a top-down decree of standards of behaviour, offer a humble set of suggestions for people to use in establishing their own community standards would be more effective. Think along the lines of, "Here are some tools that, in our experience, have been useful for us, and you're welcome to use any or all of them to help you build healthy online communities of your own."
I like the idea and I like the direction that the draft is going. But PLEASE hire a graphic designer for the badges. You've obviously put some time into the ones you've posted so I commend you on your effort. However, there are quite a few blogs out there that are dedicated to exceptional graphic design and photography on the web and I would be hesitant to put anything less than exce