From the "How Wonderfully Redundant" files.

The New York Times weighs in on "blogger civility" (as if Online Integrity was such an exercise in success). The story is in dire need of fisking.

Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.

Hey! I want credit for coining the term "Atlas Juggs"! TBogg gets credit for Jenna/NotJenna (or was that Norbiz?)!

Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.

IT'S CALLED COMMENT MODERATION! GAH!

A recent outbreak of antagonism among several prominent bloggers “gives us an opportunity to change the level of expectations that people have about what’s acceptable online,” said Mr. O’Reilly, who posted the preliminary recommendations last week on his company blog (radar.oreilly.com).

Name 'em. Or is that too uncivil? Because "a recent outbreak of antagonism among several prominent bloggers" is as valid as "some people say Elizabeth and John Edwards are being selfish."

Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.

A sliding scale of civility? Hmm. Which blogs do YOU think will be the most popular?

Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.

OOOH, BADGES! JUST LIKE IN THE GIRL SCOUTS! Can I get a yellow Star of David? I've always wanted one of those.

“If it’s a carefully constructed set of principles, it could carry a lot of weight even if not everyone agrees,” Mr. Wales said.

Yeah? The Constitution is a carefully constructed set of principles, but that doesn't seem to stop George Bush from ignoring it all the time.

The code of conduct already has some early supporters, including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger (hyperorg.com/blogger) and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. “The aim of the code is not to homogenize the Web, but to make clearer the informal rules that are already in place anyway,” he said.

1. Define "well-known".
2. Define "well-known."

But as with every other electrically charged topic on the Web, finding common ground will be a serious challenge. Some online writers wonder how anyone could persuade even a fraction of the millions of bloggers to embrace one set of standards. Others say that the code smacks of restrictions on free speech.

And it's the ones who call for these silly, unenforceable rules that are the first ones to violate them. Lookin' at you, Tacitus.

Mr. Wales and Mr. O’Reilly were inspired to act after a firestorm erupted late last month in the insular community of dedicated technology bloggers. In an online shouting match that was widely reported, Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author from Boulder County, Colo., and a friend of Mr. O’Reilly, reported getting death threats that stemmed in part from a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolitic comments left by visitors to someone’s personal Web site.

How marvelously self-referential. Widely reported? Where? Oh, and I don't recall these people rushing to Amanda Marcotte's defense when she was getting death threats from Bill Donohue supporters.

Distraught over the threats and manipulated photos of her that were posted on other critical sites — including one that depicted her head next to a noose — Ms. Sierra canceled a speaking appearance at a trade show and asked the local police for help in finding the source of the threats. She also said that she was considering giving up blogging altogether.

Internet death threats are crimes. Contact the FBI, Ms. Sierra. Your local police are too busy handing out DUI tickets.

In an interview, she dismissed the argument that cyberbullying is so common that she should overlook it. “I can’t believe how many people are saying to me, ‘Get a life, this is the Internet,’ ” she said. “If that’s the case, how will we ever recognize a real threat?”

See comment above. You're not helpless.

As many female bloggers can attest, women are often targets. Heather Armstrong, a blogger in Salt Lake City who writes publicly about her family (dooce.com), stopped accepting unmoderated comments on her blog two years ago after she found that conversations among visitors consistently devolved into vitriol.

And there's your answer, you wilfully ignorant idiots. COMMENT MODERATION! Or are you just itching to create a mini-Gestapo?

Since last October, she has also had to deal with an anonymous blogger who maintains a separate site that parodies her writing and has included photos of Ms. Armstrong’s daughter, copied from her site.

Althouse, is that you?!?!

Women are not the only targets of nastiness. For the last four years, Richard Silverstein has advocated for Israeli-Palestinian peace on a blog (richardsilverstein.com) that he maintains from Seattle.

People who disagree with his politics frequently leave harassing comments on his site. But the situation reached a new low last month, when an anonymous opponent started a blog in Mr. Silverstein’s name that included photos of Mr. Silverstein in a pornographic context.

“I’ve been assaulted and harassed online for four years,” he said. “Most of it I can take in stride. But you just never get used to that level of hatred.”

Hey, at least you didn't get a greeting card company offering images of you in bondage gear, just in time for Christmas. Let's face it: the blogosphere is mirroring the society in which it functions. I'm not condoning the behavior, just stating a fact.

A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.

I pay money to Six Apart (Typepad) to host my blog. I get to do whatever the fuck I want with my comments. Period.

That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor’s comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

See comment above. Yes, the Internet is a "public sphere", but as far as I'm concerned, each blog is a small store on the Commons; if I want to put up a "do not solicit" sign in my window, then that's my right.

Robert Scoble, a popular technology blogger who stopped blogging for a week in solidarity with Kathy Sierra after her ordeal became public, says the proposed rules “make me feel uncomfortable.” He adds, “As a writer, it makes me feel like I live in Iran.”

Or a "ChiCom", as Pam "Miss Internet Manners" Oshry would say.

Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make — believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,” he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.”

Wow. War is Peace, Mr. O'Reilly? I've never heard an inaner argument. Well, that's not true. I have heard inaner arguments, but they're usually found over at Little Green Snotballs or RedState.

This proposal is DOA. And really, really stupid.

Comments

[JDM]

Jesus Christ, what a dumb fucking idea! Then again, it's only Monday morning and I haven't seen the early WH press releases yet...

[Swift Loris]

"Free speech," BTW, is constitutionally protected speech, i.e, speech that the government is not allowed to restrain. "Free speech" does not mean you get to say anything you want under any and all circumstances.

[norbizness]

Sorry, D.R., I just came up with

Doughy Pantload = Jonah Goldberg
Unfrozen Caveman Columnist = Jeff Jacoby

and about 100 others nobody cares about. Speaking of not caring, that's me all over when it comes to bloggers whining about mean comments.

[spocko]

Maybe they can propose some guidelines for the talk radio shows that broadcast violent rhetoric on the public air waves. You know, the highly compensated republican operatives. You would think they would be first in line to be civil. But NOOOOOOO.

[queek]

Oh well WT you don't get no stinkin badges!

[George Johnston]

As many female bloggers can attest, women are often targets.
Did you hear about the woman who donned a black wig and a fake accent and made fun of John Bolton's #1 fan on YouTube? I also hear that there are people who will try to trick Google into making George Bush's home page the #1 hit for failure!

Quick! Get me my smelling salts!

[whaleshaman]

my "favorite" made it up all by his special self, power point of o'reilly's [are they related?] code: One can disagree without being disagreeable. [wanna bet he was in day care?]

literally what flashed up on my cranial screen was laurie mylroie's gal pal, embed judy miller's planted wmd articles in the times and her hotel breakfast [did she wear sunglasses?] with what's his name....er, snookums, nonono....uhhhh YES now i remember, the übercool SCOOTER! [kinda reminds one of a dog with worms, eh? a little snarky, i confess.]

and then i think jesus h. fucking christ [no aspersions cast at jc, a true good guy, leaving aside the purple-dress religions created to so-call honor him - no snark intended] about the human suffering and the blood-letting and the precious lives lost and wasted and i'm not just thinking "our troops" here. [slight disagreeable disagreeing.]

and i come to this really disagreeable conclusion: why the fuck doesn't he take down his own mother ship and start mopping up the pools of blood flecked with bits of human tissue of mother's children that make the new york times black and white and complicitly red all over, hmmmmmm?

thanks, wt, for keeping it civil -- and i mean that sincerely. fuck these assholes who can't see the blood on their own hands.

[ps: what a great morning, to wake up to pat oliphant's head up imus' arse, giving him a free "get out of jail" card -- then the abusive kant of tim "i never met a blogger i did like" o'reilly.]

[four legs good]

Blech.

Maybe if they weren't all such assholes, I wouldn't have to fucking curse all the goddamned time.

[TF-MA]

I'm thinkin' will that "civility" apply to the vile fascist squids who've polluted the discourse with their incessant master baiting?

PS I coined the term "squid, ""master baiting" and I occasionally refer to Britt Hume as "Shit Fume" so where's MY CASH SETTLEMENT?!

[darkblack]

"...many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor’s comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech."

Then such 'veterans' (no doubt invented out of whole pixels to reinforce the authors fallacious point) don't understand the concept of free speech very well.

Those who visit my blog, for example, will note that those wishing to comment must register and have their comments moderated.
I was not looking for a 'exclusive fan club', but as one who had varied aspersions cast upon my character (and that of my compatriots) at a highly charged time, I had no interest in hosting the digital excrescence of others - When the blog was started no comments were allowed at all...Yet those who wished to find fault or favor with my presentations or attempt to sell me magic potions that would stimulate organ growth were free to go anywhere else on the Internet to state them in a manner that they found pleasing with no interference from me whatsoever.

That is free speech...Not the above romanticised scenario wherein one can step into another's 'home', abuse them to the point of satisfied stupefaction and then walk out whistling to repeat the performance elsewhere.

Your right to free speech ends at my right not to listen

;>)

[m]

"a second source for any gossip ... they write about."

would a second gossiper suffice?

[Daniel DiRito]

Where’s my Easter Bonnet?

While some may see the blogosphere and the behavior of its participants as a new phenomenon, it isn't difficult to find an appropriate predecessor model. That model is found on the streets of any metropolitan area and it is called traffic and the prevalence of road rudeness...or in its extreme...road rage.

Granted, personal attacks and snark on the internet are not likely to lead to fatalities, but if computers had wheels, it certainly would.

Read more on the relationship between blog civility and Easter Bonnets...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

[goodOlWhatsisFace]

yeah, well, once again the Tired Gray Lady is trying to marginalize all bloggers, who are of course cutting into their bottom line...

Kind of like the recording industry (but in a less intrusive, computer-hacking, siccing-lawyers-on-10-year-olds way). They can adapt & compete, or they can whinge about fate & steadily go bankrupt.

I'd dismiss this with a "YAWN" except their spewings still get far more public readership than the average blog. So keep up the noise! Keep refuting that garbage for the worthless waste of electrons it is.

And keep up the good work -

[FastMovingCloud]

Civility is, apparently, a one-way street. And I think you know what side of the street we are on!

[whig]

Hadn't realized before what a douche Tim O'Reilly was. (The other O'Reilly, well...) I'm all for this proposal though, as to their own little clique, because if they censor themselves they are doing themselves no favors.

[whig]

Oh, was that uncivil of me? I should not have said douche. I should have said, feminine hygiene product. There, that should be better.

[Caveat]

Ha ha ha great comments, WT!

Can you say 'control'? Not to mention 'ka-ching?'. Not to mention 'the MSM is getting really scared now'?

To hell with these guys and their 'prominent' bloggers. I'll moderate my own comments, set the tone on my own blog, which I do to my own satisfaction. I had to start a blog because my issue wasn't being covered honestly in the MSM, so no love lost there.

I see Spocko has already been here so I don't need to mention that little example of harassment, never mind the vitriolic bigotry being spouted on the radio by so-called 'conservatives' who are really just rednecks.

'Women are targets?' Oh, you mean like nutbar commenters with the initials DF? Or maybe Maladaladingdong or Coltsteeth?

Speak up man, name some names we've actually heard of before.

[pansypoo]

where would this leave attaturk and other blog whores?

and i think i was the first to use Abu Gonzales, bushevics and Fux news.
but teevee gnews hasn't caught on as well.

and next they are gonna create blogging university programs and it's gonna go downhill from there.

[donna]

I like Tim O Reilly and he's done great stuff, but he needs to STFU about blogging. He doesn't understand it. At all.

[reader_iam]

Your right to free speech ends at my right not to listen

Perfect!

[LittlePig]

Gee, I might care if I had actually heard of Kathy Sierra. If they can convince, say, Bill Donahue to shut the hell up, we'll talk.

As WT points out, the person paying for the joint gets the say.

[Ha! No registration system! Bwahahahahahaha!]

Tonica, dammit. Tonica, not NotJenna. Try to keep up at the back, there.

[TeddySanFran]

badgers?

joints?

now I'm confused (again)

[Ruthie]

First use of "wingnut" to describe ultra-conservative/fundamentalists: 2000 election cycle. That would be my brother Mike and myself.

[FrancestheCockatoo]

Winston Smith is a member of the Outer Party. He works in the Records Department in the Ministry of Truth, rewriting and distorting history.

[Tengrain]

shorter NYT: We're scaired of bloggers' influence.

Regards,

Tengrain

[pseudonymous in nc]

Love ya, tigre, but you're making the same mistake on the flip side as those who say this means political bloggers need to STFU and get with the civility memo.

Disclaimer: I go to the odd tech conference and hang out with some of the tech bloggers on the fringes of the Sierra kerfuffle. And I've had a couple of conversations with Tim O'Reilly. And I don't think he gives a flying fuck about political blogging, just as most political bloggers don't give a fuck about blogs that deal with the minutiae of Web 2.0 social interaction.

And that's as it should be. There is not some big homogeneous blogosphere any more, and I'm not sure there was one in the beginning. And Tim O'Reilly, being an apolitical geeky type, thinks there might be an algorithmic way to identify the basic distinctions between blogging milieus: 'my place, my rules', extended to 'our hood, our rules'. Because individual blogs aren't simply distinct entities with their own zoning regulations and bylaws: if they were, the whole blogroll hoo-hah wouldn't happen.

Does it clunk like a 70s Oldsmobile? Sure: techies aren't really good at this kind of thing. But getting on a free-speech absolutism high horse forces political bloggers into a corner where they're implicitly defending the rights of sociopathic assholes to persecute people who post pictures of their cats and children and quilts and whatever, then cry 'censorship!' when they're subject to moderation.