Nia Dark and Lovely, a Black Escort in London

There have been howls of protest as web gurus try to banish bad behaviour, from the blogosphere.

I have to confess that I do not feel strongly about this. I guess because I am not a fan of bad behaviour.

Perhaps it was inevitable. When two leading internet pioneers came together this week to propose a set of guidelines that would filter out offensive and abusive comments from blogs, they were met by a torrent of offensive and abusive comments.

The text that has got the collective bowels moving of these and many other bloggers is a draft set of rules on introducing the concept of civility to the blogosphere. It is the combined work of Tim O'Reilly, inventor of the phrase Web 2.0 to describe the next generation of interactive communications, and Jimmy Wales, founder of the communal encyclopaedia Wikipedia.

They have posted a seven-point programme that would attempt, they say, to address the plethora of abusive comments on the web, while preserving the free spirit of the medium. Point one of the code is that anyone signing up to it would commit themselves to a "civility enforced" standard to remove unacceptable comments from their blog.

Unacceptable is defined as content that is used to abuse, harass, stalk or threaten others; is libellous or misrepresentative; or infringes copyright, confidentiality or privacy rights. Anonymous postings are also to be removed, with every comment requiring a recognised email address, even if posts are made under pseudonyms.

Point six encourages bloggers to ignore "trolls" making nasty comments that fall short of abuse or libel. "Never wrestle with a pig," is the advice. "You both get dirty, but the pig likes it."

To back up the code, they propose a "civility enforced" badge marking sites which subscribe to the guidelines, and an "anything goes" badge to denote those that do not. The proposed guidelines can be interactively amended by web users, until a final version is agreed.

The draft guidelines have prompted wide debate with varying responses. Dan Gillmor of the Centre for Citizen Media, a group devoted to grassroots media attached to Berkeley's graduate school of journalism, rejects the need for a code of conduct. He says bloggers require only one simple rule: be civil. To define unacceptable behaviour is to create a monster, he says, as "Who'd be the judge of it? The government? Libel lawyers? Uh, oh."

901am says the idea is the preserve of rabid feminists and professional victims. "Civility is subjective, and controlling what people say and do on blogs can only be a recipe for the decline of the medium and the introduction of totalitarianism online."

Quotes from Howls of protest as web gurus attempt to banish bad behaviour from blogosphere by Ed Pilkington of the Guardian Newspaper.

I can see how opinion may vary over what are unacceptable comments. I guess it becomes tricky when someone other than myself, can decide what comments I post on my blog.

I would prefer it if comments were not anonymous, but I recognise that some people are fearful of identifying themselves.

Jeff Jarvis has an interesting take on this, in his no twinkie badges post, he has some strong views.

Labels: Blogging, comments, guardian, Jeff Jarvis

There are some blogs that I read daily, and others that I read occasionally. The Glengarry Leads is one of my daily reads. I was saddened to read his post yesterday,
, threatening to stop blogging.

Glengarry cannot understand why lots of people read his blog, and yet, noone talks back compared to those who read.The ratio is sick.

I have only been blogging for over two months now, and I can see what Glengarry is saying. I think it goes with the territory. I know how many people come in to read, but few people comment. I am happy that some people read, and that there are a loyal group who return regularly. I appreciate the comments that readers leave, but I guess I do not feel it would get me down if noone commented. There are some blogs that I come across, that I do not feel I have anything to comment on, ever.

I take what Glengarry says about feeling that he does not have that much to say any longer. I suppose that happens to all bloggers at some point.

Glengarry if you are reading this, please do not stop blogging. I find your blog, entertaining, thought provoking and informative. I feel you have a lot to say.

Here is James's B's view on Glengarry's post yesterday, and his view on why readers do not leave comments.

I came across this article in the Guardian, on how Blogs can be a place for great debate.

In Nobody's Perfect, his brilliant collection of reviews and essays, the New Yorker's film critic, Anthony Lane, writes: "I am merely starting an argument, as everyone does over dinner, or in a crowded bar, after going to see a film, and [the reader's] freedom to disagree is part of the fun." What an urbane, civilised vision of reader-critic interaction that is. I'd love to see his reaction to the Guardian arts blog, where the dynamic often suggests that the argument has spilled out of the crowded bar and escalated into a brawl in the car park.

I'd like to think this was a good thing. Certainly, it is an education. Like backroom comedy writers dragooned into performing late-night stand-up in a club full of tetchy drunks, this paper's critics have had to learn to deal with hecklers very quickly. The first time I experienced it, my offering was described as "stereotypically self-indulgent Guardian wank bordering on self-parody". I sulked for a bit, then got over it. All but the kindest critics have written unpleasant things about artists in their field, so we should learn to take a few knocks.

I'm not convinced, though, that what might politely be described as "robust" debate on the blog generates light as well as heat. The internet has always licensed people to be far ruder than they would be in a face-to-face encounter. In 1990, US attorney Mike Godwin formulated Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Similarly, as an arts blog discussion grows longer, the probability of the writer being branded "smug", "pointless", "arrogant" or "London-obsessed" approaches one.
There is an appetite for genuine debate on the web, but it is often drowned out by the howling of people who seem to regard the very existence of professional critics as an outrageous affront. The subtext is this: anyone can be a critic, so anyone who has the temerity to be paid for the privilege deserves to be put in the stocks.

Many of the people who post on blogs appear to be annoyed not by what the writers say so much as the fact that they're in a position to say it. You can spot this type because they write things like: "You've only written this to provoke a reaction." Or: "Why did you even write this? What a waste of time." As if writing to complain about a waste of time were not, in fact, a bigger waste of time. Or, my favourite: "Typical Guardian." Perhaps they also post on the website of Practical Caravan magazine, complaining: "Typical Practical Caravan. So caravancentric."

The most belligerent voices on the blogs speak with either a weary, condescending sneer or a florid pomposity redolent of Ignatius J Reilly in A Confederacy of Dunces. If, as they imply, their taste is flawless and their intellect mighty, then perhaps they could find a better use for these prodigious gifts than taking potshots on websites. Just a thought.

These are relatively early days. With time and luck, the good will out and the bad will lose the chips from their shoulders; or, failing that, find something better to do with those slow periods at work. Until then, at least, every critic knows that it is always better to be read than ignored. No amount of abuse at the foot of a blog is quite as disheartening as the dread phrase: "Comments (0)".

Here is the full article by Dorian Lynskey of the Guardian newspaper.

Calling all my hecklers. Blogs will be a great place for debate-once all that anger dies down.

What is your view on leaving comments?

Labels: Blogging, comments, Glengarry Leads, guardian, James B Logwriter

Some of you have emailed and are still having problems posting comments. I cannot work out what is happening.

Some stuff is coming through, and some is disappearing into cyberspace. If you have the patience, just keep trying.

Thanks for letting me know.

Labels: comments

I have had a number of problems posting comments on other blogs today. My blogger ID kept on getting rejected. You may find that if you post anonymously, or use the other label it gets through.

Some readers have had problems posting comments to my blog, too.

The problem lies with the blogger software,grrrrrr.

I am not ignoring any of your comments, and if you can, just keep trying.

Labels: comments