4/11/2007 - Code of Conduct for Bloggers

Here's a draft code of conduct for bloggers I discovered today. I will add my own take on this later, but please do comment on it, even if I haven't already done so myself. Do also check the site I took it from, http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html. There are also two badges associated with this code of conduct. If you're committed to these guidelines you can get a "civility enforced" badge, if you think it's all just a truckload of baloney, you might consider an "anything goes" badge, although you may find that equally nonsensical.

"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 others

We 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." (source: O'Reilly Radar)

4/11/2007 - I like it

I like it but I would add a couple of things. Specific to sites like J/H...please don't 'clog' the home page with numerous posts so that other people's posts don't show up. This is typically done by new members who stop posting within a month. Also, if someone leaves a nice or helpful comment or two, visit their blog and acknowledge it. If you want to keep to exclusively, don't make your posts public.

4/11/2007 - Scary

This sounds a little too much like censorship and infringing upon freedom of speach rights. You can definitely put me down for the anything goes badge on this one

Edited by SilverWind on 4/11/2007 at 4:35 PM

4/13/2007 - Code of conduct

I have to agree with SilverWind. I don't think blogging should be regulated to this extent, because it does infringe on freedom of speech. On the other hand, if you're being targeted by 'trolls', it wouldn't hurt to just delete their comments. Thankfully this is all self-regulatory. Nobody will ever be forced to follow these rules, and if you get the 'civility enforced' badge, it's still up to you to enforce the civility.

About the 'anything goes' badge, I wonder if anybody who is opposed to this code of conduct will even want to use any badge associated with it, even if it denounces the code...