The Proposed “Code of Conduct” for blogging

Okay, nobody can actually make bloggers (et al.) follow such codes of civility, but are the proposed rules circulating on the Net actually worth paying any attention to?  They were engendered by some rather extreme cases, but are being thought of as global guidelines.  Here they are (the Blogging Wikia version, and sans the commentary and explication that go with them); I’ve included, by contrast, some of the original versions that were posted by Tim O’Reilly.  Note that while they are focused on civility in general, a lot of them have to do with the civility of commenters on a blog:

1. We take responsibility for our own words and reserve the right to restrict comments on our blog that do not conform to basic civility standards.

So far so good.  You blog it, you take responsibility for it.  You allow comments, you have the right to delete them if you see fit.  If you do so, it is to be hoped that you will mention you did so, and why, and not do deceptive things like delete dissenters then claim you never got any comments back from them.

For myself, I have only rarely (less than a dozen times) deleted comments from here, even on those occasions when I’ve gotten something abusive.  I don’t get that much in the way of abusive commentary, to be sure, but for me the appearance of being tolerant of dissent is very important.

O’Reilly’s version reads, “Take responsibility not just for your own words, but for the comments you allow on your blog.”  A lot of folks have expressed some anxiety about that, not wanting to be responsible for everything that trolls and the like post.  I have to agree with them to some degree — I don’t support, condone, or agree with a lot of what’s written on my blog.  On the other hand (see #7, and #4), if I as a blogger am providing a public forum, I bear some responsibility for what gets put there, ethically if not legally.  O’Reilly couches it as “Yes, you own your own words. But you also own the tone that you allow on any blog or forum you control. Part of ‘owning your own words’ is owning the effects of your behavior and the editorial voice you foster.”  It’s a subject that’s hard to codify without possibility of abuse, but it’s worth consideration on a regular basis.

O’Reilly has a separate item (his don’t map to the Wikiia ones precisely): “Label your tolerance level for abusive comments.”  That’s not a bad idea, either.  Is a site anything goes, or are you someone who will delete anything unpleasant?  Either has their place, but it’s better to set for the ground rules than get into an argument afterward because you didn’t.

2. We won’t say anything online that we wouldn’t say in person.

Hmmm.  That’s actually an interesting one.  A fine guideline, in some ways.  In other ways — there are a number of people for whom politeness or shyness would actually restrain me from some comments I have made about them.  In an open, candid discussion — yeah, perhaps, and certainly such comments should derive from sincerity and not be relying on the “anonymity” of the Internet to let one get away with slander.

Still, this is a good rule of thumb, if not a strict rule — if you wouldn’t say something to someone’s face, do you really want to be saying it behind their back?

3. If tensions escalate, we will connect privately before we respond publicly.

O’Reilly phrases this, “Take the conversation offline, and talk directly, or find an intermediary who can do so.”  I actually sort of disagree with this one.  I’ve seen such matters handled both ways, and while private communications can be useful, they can also be abused to stifle an argument, or take it out of the clarity of the public eye into unsubstantiated back room discussions.  On the other hand, there are plenty of cases where, in matters of sincere disagreement or misunderstanding between people of good will, talking offline and out of the glare of the blog spotlight can reduce the posturing and fear-based reactions — and the taking up sides by the peanut gallery — and result in a cleaner resolution. 

Again, this should be considered as a tactic or course of action, not mandated.

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we will take considered action.

To the extent this is “don’t let your silence be considered consent” and “Remember Kitty Genovese,” fine.  To the extent that it’s used to try and stifle debate or to further fan flames, feh.

O’Reilly says, “If you know someone who is behaving badly, tell them so.”  That gives a bit more of a personal aspect — telling someone you know that you think they’re doing something wrong.  Not a bad idea, that, though cases may vary.  Maybe a better personal code is don’t become an abettor and enabler of abuse.

5. We do not allow pseudonymous comments, but will allow anonymous ones.

The idea being that folks can publicly hide their identity, but that the blogger has the right and obligation to know who they actually are (e.g., via a registration system, a valid e-mail address, etc.).  I think this has to be handled on a case-by-case basis.  In most situations, I agree, not just to beat the spammers but to create some accountability for actions/speech. 

There are times and places when pseudonymity, as defined in the rules, is necessary and good.  They are few and far between, I think, but they are there.

O’Reilly’s version is “Consider eliminating anonymous comments,” which would include anonymous ones — the idea being that anonymity (even if the blogger has a key to your identity) encourages irresponsibility in commentary.  I agree and disagree.  It does encourage irrresponsibility, but even the anonymity of the Internet (where nobody knows you’re a dog) itself does so.  Short of making everyone post their picture, address, and phone number, this is always going to be a compromise.

6. We ignore the trolls.

A good idea, in general, though harder to implement fairly and constructively than it sounds.  Some “trolls” are just poorly framed arguments.  Silence to other “trolls” can imply some consent.  I don’t answer every comment on my blog — sometimes that means I accede, sometimes that means I’m just too tired to do so.  On the other hand, I rarely close comments, either (nor have I had to, to be sure).

7. We encourage blog hosts to enforce more vigorously their terms of service.

Not mentioned by O’Reilly.  In general, sure, this makes sense, though I’m not sure this is a “blogger code of conduct” item — except insofar as, in some ways (with commenters), we, as bloggers, are acting as hosts, and we need to both demonstrate and then enforce our terms of service.

Overall thoughts:  Mostly common sense rules of thumb and guidelines, encouragement toward personal (and corporate) responsibilty .  My only concern about formalizing them as a “code of conduct” is that it’s then just as likely to become a baseball bat in some other folks hands.  “Hey, there was an abusive comment there about me, and you didn’t take considered action, so you’re in violation!  And I’m gonna sue!  Help!  I’m being repressed!”  Nobody needs that, either.