Bloggers Code of Conduct
It’s a well known fact that the level of activity surrounding a blog (specifically in the number and quality of posts and comments) can tell you a lot about the vitality of the community that the blogger has created. However, are all posts and comments good? A few weeks ago the blogging community witnessed a pretty horrible attack on a well known and respected blogger which really captured the attention of the overall blogging community. It also sparked Jeff De Cagna’s 338 and Counting post which is what brought the situation to my attention.
In response to the situation Tim O’Reilly issued a call for a “Bloggers Code of Conduct”. Tim went on to enumerate some initial thoughts based on some discussion at O’Reilly’s ETech conference. Among them:
- Take responsibility not just for your own words, but for the comments you allow on your blog.
- Label your tolerance level for abusive comments.
- Consider eliminating anonymous comments
- Ignore the trolls.
- Take the conversation offline, and talk directly, or find an intermediary who can do so.
- If you know someone who is behaving badly, tell them so.
- Don’t say anything online that you wouldn’t say in person.
While this was short of codifying universally acceptable blogging norms, it did lead to a fury of activity. Yesterday (03-April-07), Tim posted an update announcing that a draft had been created, a domain name (bloggincode.org) had been secured (not yet active at the time of writing) and a review process via a wiki will be put in place to solicit feedback.
The draft code includes the following provisions:
- Take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.
- Don’t say anything online that we wouldn’t say in person.
- Connect privately before we respond publicly.
- When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.
- We do not allow anonymous comments
- We ignore the trolls.
If you subscribe to the code, you can obtain a badge indicating that you do. Likewise, if you decide to be more liberal with what you allow in your comments, you can display a badge that indicates that as well.
Instead of trying to come up with a witty or extremely thoughtful synthesis, I will simply offer Tim’s own words:
As Doc Searls famously said in The Cluetrain Manifesto, the book he co-authored with Chris Locke and David Weinberger, “markets are conversations.” We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation in ways that were long missing from mainstream media and marketing-dominated corporate websites. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. There’s no reason why we should tolerate conversations online that we wouldn’t tolerate in our living room.
I fully believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression but I have to draw the line at personally attacking someone simply because they are an easy target. Is the Blogging Code of Conduct an example of a socially responsible response to a horrible situation or simply common sense / respect for others codified? I suspect it is the later as opposed to the former. Regardless, it makes me wonder why moral values and respect have seemingly disintegrated, especially in such a public forum.
Sphere: Related ContentRelated Posts
If you enjoyed this post, you may find these interesting as well.
My name is Dave Sabol and I work at the intersection of technology, online learning and knowledge management for 
On one level, I embrace this code of conduct. On another, I think it limits free speech. The courts agree that the owners and hosts of interactive discussion sites are not responsible for libelous comments left by its users. I wonder how this code will affect future rulings, if at all.
Ben, I agree. Anything that codifies or formalizes what should be common sense / common courtesy especially at the expense of free speech definitely seems like a slippery slope. I guess I can see it from both sides (why it is needed versus why it shouldn’t be necessary) but believe that we live in a civil society and should respect the individual rights of others.
I’m not sure that it will have any impact on future litigation, then again this area of law is really too new and without a ton of precedent so anything is possible. What I do wonder is if it will have any long-term impact on the behavior of blogger’s / commenter’s.
Setting aside the legal issues, I do think that codes of community conduct can have a great impact on the level of discourse on a particular blog. I’d offer as an example the blog Obsidian Wings (with one of the best taglines ever: “This is the voice of moderation. I wouldn’t go so far as to say we’ve actually SEIZED the radio station …”)
OW is a group blog that, by design, includes writers from the right, left, and center of the U.S. political spectrum. And they have a simple set of posting rules that codify what they expect from commenters who wish to participate in the discussions on their blog. I personally see a great contrast between the level of civility on Obsidian Wings and the level of nastiness that you often see on many politically-oriented blogs (on either the right or the left).
I suppose that, to me, the OW code doesn’t violate my free speech in any way; I don’t have to participate in the OW discussions if I don’t want to, and there are lots of other blogs out there without any posting rules at all where I could participate if I wished. And I’d bet the same will be true of O’Reilly’s new code; plenty of blogs won’t follow it, some will, and you can choose where you want to spend your time.
Lisa, great points (as always!). I agree totally on the fact that it is a choice. Ultimately you can take it or leave it and I definitely support the concept of a civil and intellectual exchange of thoughts or ideas. That’s why I (and many others I suspect) write blogs anyway.
What I don’t support is the idea that we have to create / codify a set of standards that people should be operating by anyway. OW’s (thanks for the great link) and O’Reilly’s code, for as elegant and explanatory as they are, still smack of common sense items we learned as grade school students.
I guess I am having a difficult time with the idea that as a society we are supposed to be progressing thanks to new technology, better access to information and an increased self-awareness. For as much as a step-forward it might be, I feel as though we are losing more than we are gaining.
The codes of conduct remind me of the former community norms documents that you’d be expected to agree to when you joined a discussion group or an online class. Perhaps what we are seeing here is the evolution of many disparate conversations with little connection taking place in a similar venue to the idea that the web really is a online/virtual manifestation of our physical existence. As such, even though there are generally accepted rules (e.g. stop at stop signs) they are still codified somewhere.
I think there is going to be plenty of debate on this one for some time to come.