TIM O’REILLY’S BLOGGER CODE OF CONDUCT

Here’s the first draft of the Blogger Code of Conduct developed by Tim O’Reilly and posted on his blog: Radar.

We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and
open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of
civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it
helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and
constructive conversation.

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.

anythinggoes2.jpg
We also decided we needed an "anything goes" badge for sites that want
to warn possible commenters that they are entering a free-for-all zone.
The text to accompany that badge might go something like this:

This is an open, uncensored forum. We are not responsible
for the comments of any poster, and when discussions get heated, crude
language, insults and other "off color" comments may be encountered.
Participate in this site at your own risk.

2 thoughts on “TIM O’REILLY’S BLOGGER CODE OF CONDUCT”

  1. Good for you! There’s an old fashioned word that needs to be resurrected: propriety. If more people practiced it, we’d all be better off.

  2. RE: The Code of Conduct: I understand the desire to maintain civility, but as someone mentioned in one of the replies about the jackhammer incident, it seems that many folks respond “viscerally” and in the moment, in a way that perhaps only anonymity will allow..
    While the idea of a code of conduct would civilize blogging in a NY Times kind of way, I wonder if something won’t be lost too.
    Unless I am missing something, I haven’t really noticed any abusive language or obscenities in the comments-postings to OTBKB — it is a relief that folks aren’t totally letting it all hang out. But at the same time, there is something “honest” (or at least non-mediated) and real (albeit gritty and sometimes a little ugly) about some of those responses that might seem over the top. Since this seems totally unique to blogs it might be a shame to lose this form of free expression. But as we see with the Imus incident, community can set standards that would trump (pardon the expression) first amendment rights.
    Peace Out

Comments are closed.