Will You Adhere to the New Blogging Code of Conduct?

Forget this man... The blogging world is supposed inspire freedom of speech, at its fullest extent.

Why do we need rules?

-Sam from MarketMatador.com

I posted about this too before and all I got are positive reactions.

@Aaron
well because of that fight club, don't you think your blog's traffic increased?

The whole concept is utterly ridiculous, not to mention severely lacking on so many levels. For example, it could never be universally enforced, if it could be enforced at all.

In fact, it's so brainlessly stupid that I posted a "Fight Club" version of it on my blog. Hell, it was either make a joke of it or blow my top over its unending stupidity. :razz:

Shine on,
Aaron

A fixed, carved-in-stone law may be too much, but I must admit, we have been doing some of the things on the list there anyway. The point is that putting a blogging leash on every single blog out there is, well, pointless.

I feel funny. I mean, these guidelines or so called blogging code of conduct are just.. common sense.

I am unalterably against any form of "code of conduct". Heck, you could spend a year in useless international meetings just arguing about "what is a blog?" if you want to get down in the weeds. The appeal of blogging to me and to many is the freedom to publish as we wish ... and the other side of the coin is that those who don't share my tastes don't need to read or even visit. Should be nothing else needed.

I'm particularly fascinated though by the reference to Tim O'Reilly being "the" founder of the Internet. I know history is a weak subject for most North Americans but please ... First, there is no single "founder" of the Internet. The Internet as we know it today evolved from various US Department of Defense experiments and development contracts for a network called DARPA Net (later ARPA Net). Educational users and then the general public were allowed access bit by bit and the government internationalized control of the 'Net and commercialized the access costs, gradually weaning the network away from tax-based support. I have no idea where O'Reilly was in this activity but I cab guarantee he didn't do it himself.

His contribution, if you can call it that, was to claim to have coined the name Web 2.0 (whatever the heck Web 2.0 really means) and then to run around suing people who tried to use the phrase it in order to protect his antiquated paper publishing company which has tried to position themselves as somehow being the "owners" of Web 2.0.

I wonder if people who are supposedly smart are really naive enough to believe that something like this ever will be universally followed?

Stuff like this is regularly suggested and it never catches on.

And i think the blogosphere is one of the places which there is relatively good conduct, if you wanna see real trolling and hatred check out newsgroups or even youtube. :)

While I run my blogs in a similar fashion to that code, I would not want to see it formalized. I like being able to allow people to comment as they see fit, and with whatever name they like. Setting up such barriers formally would be counterproductive.

Anyone in Canada, or anyone familiar with the infamous Gun Registry, will see the similarities between the criminals that will never register their guns, and the irresponsible bloggers and/or anonymous users that will not change their foolish ways.

The morons will continue to be morons, as the 'good' people will continue to be good people.

Laws (in the real world) aren't usually what stop people from doing things, as you'll note with most jails being overcrowded, etc.

Attempting to put pseudo-laws down on the internet is just silly. The more freedom you enjoy, the more responsibility you must put on your shoulders. This goes for real life too!

We enjoy reading and writing in blogs due to that exact 'freedom' of speech. The personal and unique nature of blogs make them attractive to us, in a world filled with censorship and calculated marketing moves.

It's a shame that the death threat case has been used so much in promoting this nonsense. Not to trivialize her plight, but we have many horrible things going on in the world, and there will always be fools trying to screw with you. There are many paths to take in resolving the issue, and perhaps the wrong one was chosen?

Everyone so outraged about this one single case should realize the collective power they have, to help shine light on things that matter. It's a waste to spend so much time on something that will not matter in the long run (re: the code of conduct, not Kathy's case).

Look at 9/11 and how that tragedy was used for leverage against the freedoms of the people. See where it brought us, as a world...and remember it, for ***** sake!

I'll follow it-when it serves my blog and readers. Just like always. If it doesn't - who cares.

Personally, I think creating some sort of set code of conduct defeats the entire founding purpose of a blog. As Mitch pointed out, blogs began as very personal. Although they've become business tools, I see no reason to start forcing etiquette upon the medium.

Obviously if someone is trying to use their blog for a business they're going to write appropriately for that business. If they don't, their blog won't appeal to their customers and there's no point in writing it anyway. I think O'Reilly's ideas are just that: his ideas. If that's how he wants to run his blog then let him. I personally agree with most of his ideas for my blog, but if I was writing a blog about anarchy or political debate, I sure wouldn't hold myself at a distance from my readers who are commenting.

People love blogs because they're free-form and honest, they don't want to read more stiff PR babble.

Sara

Blog censorship is going to be tough because anonymity is inevitable. Anyone can say anything about practically anybody. It is then up to us as individuals to filter out the bad and absorb the good.

I think everyone has their own self-imposed set of blogging rules. but that's how it should be. We don't need someone else imposing their own code on to us.

I won't be following it...

it'd take too much trouble (especially for you john) to moderate all the comments...

I think people take a lot of things and think they are hot crap on the internet. It's annoying going around and seeing people just rip others to shreds because of it. It happens a lot in the teeny world however most of my sales come from there so I have to stick to it. Sometimes its like highschool all over again.

Bah

I stick to it. The best rule of thumb is would you say it in person. If the answer is no AND you try to be anonymous then you have a bit of thinking to do before spitting out those words on the net.

I think that the code of conduct is nothing more than a publicity tool itself. The code has no purpose in the real world. You can't go crying to the police that somebody broke the code of conduct and please arrest them. This has all been borne of the Kathy Sierra incident (a horrid event that I don't think for one second anyone condones). What people have to remember though is that if somebody harasses or threatens you seriously then there are already real laws in place to deal with this type of behaviour. Asking for the blogosphere to be policed and sites to practically be badged like censor rated films is a ridiculous and purposeless activity. People will always read and write what they want. If you don't like it, don't read it. It's simple, I just wish people would stop trying to get something out of it for themselves...

Keep sources private? Why would you do that? Unless they specifically request that, showing your sources proves that you didn't just blogerize someone else's content. I would #1, 2, 7 (sorta), and 9 are a part of everyone's "common sense" blogging code of conduct.

I'll not follow anything Tim O’Reilly says, really, haven't seen much 'new' or whatever coming from his side. These 'rules' practically prevent anyone from expressing his or her opinion about this that might be risky when done in real life - which is NOT good.

I just wrote an article about this whole thing in my blog. http://www.rehuel.com/2007/04/16/code-of-conduct-o...

Hopefully this will clarify some stuff.

I think ignoring the trolls is the hardest of the list.

I blogged about this very thing on April Fools' Day, I personally think this is just a buzz because no one likes to be told what to do. People that are hateful, rude and uninformed in their blogging I wouldn't assume end up very successful anyways, so I would think they get what's coming to them by way of no readers, thus no reinforcement.

Rehuel,

Thank you for the sources that allow us to see more clearly what is going on. With all due respect to Mitch, it appears that Tim has been misrepresented.

In a sense it would appear that we have right before us, one of the reasons this is being promoted.

Stop getting over excited guys, the blogging code is put forth in the, "hope that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation."

To me it's a completely pointless exercise. The only people who would follow a "code" would be people who are already behaving.

The need for a code of blogging comes from people who don't behave online. What are the odds that they're going to suddenly see the error of their ways and follow a newly founded blogging code?

Geez, everybody take a pill. :shock: I don't see anything in those guidelines that limits freedom of speech, except limitations which already exist under law. You can write anything you want in your blog as long as it's not slanderous or libellous, which, if you don't know what they are, you better look 'em up.

Basically, they're saying, get your facts straight, if you're blogging factual information...follow some journalistic principles, like having corroborating sources. Maintain a personal level of civility...didn't yer mom teach ya manners?...no matter what the trolls may be doing. And delete comments if they're really offensive, because it is your blog and you can do whatever you want with it, right?

The code is fine as long as no one would go around shoving it down blogger's throats. :lol:

Rehuel: It depends what mood I'm in. Generally I will reply to the comment and not delete it, but if someone goes too far I will delete the comment, because it's my blog.

The links you posted are just extensions of the list with Tim's comments included. I'm totally for people being able to choose what they stand for on their blog and which policies they implement, but I don't believe that Tim should be the one to come up with the list, no matter if he's trying to enforce it or not.

In regards to John or I getting sued - I don't think so. I haven't misrepresented anything. Just sharing my views on this.

3 comments:

1: These "rules" are only a few notes mentioned. "In a discussion the other night at O'Reilly's ETech conference, we came up with a few ideas about what such a code of conduct might entail. These thoughts are just a work in progress, and hopefully a spur for further discussion."

2: Mitch, when you see a comment that you don't like, especially if it's virtually calling you a hypocrite, do you reply back (nicely or not) or do you just delete the comment?

3: When you're using information, make sure you use the correct information. The list you mention is from Blogging Wikia. I see no affiliation to Tim on that site (maybe I'm not looking at the right places). I do find this link on the page you linked here, which IS to Tim's version of this story: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/call_for...

Please make sure you provide correct information, you might get yourself or John sued.

PS: this "code of conduct" came up after Kathy Sierra was blatantly harassed and was sent several death threads.

I wonder what's John 'evil' :twisted: Chow view on this

You simply adhere to the standards you set for your own blog. And as far as comments go, you adhere to the guidelines set by other publishers on THEIR sites -- that's the most people can do really...it all boils down to respect.

It would be impossible to spread that code of conduct to every blogger yet alone enforce it. Anyway as everyone has said regulation is not what blogging is about. It you don't like the way someone manages their blog don't visit it again.

I agree with Mitch and everyone thus far; I think implementing a blogging code of conduct is farfetched and idealistic. While mere guidelines are plausible, a strict set of rules would utterly defeat the purpose of blogging -- speaking one's mind, throwing both wise and nonsensical opinions out into the void, hoping someone else might understand you.

I wouldn't seriously be adhering to this.. Maybe a few which I was already doing, i would do. Otherwise certainly not