Zac Echola is muffin but trouble

Be it: Don’t be pompous

Published on 30/10/07
by Zac Echola

Bismarck Tribune editor John Irby writes ‘Civility now required in our Web site postings.’ As a fellow North Dakotan and as a fellow Web journalist, I know just how stupid and racist and childish people can be on the Web.

Still. That’s no excuse for these words:

Censorship is not a dirty word. It isn’t always desirable, but it is sometimes necessary to prevent overly disturbing, painful, uncivilized or inappropriate thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness. Censorship claims are sometimes charged by readers when parts or all of what has been submitted or gleaned is killed.

Or these words:

“Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.” That warning has long been posted online, and our pledge will continue. But a new posting will also appear that sets a higher standard for publication. “… comments must adhere to some basic principles of public conversation … comments will not be posted that contain potential libel and slander, personal insults and name calling or profanity. Posts must be issue-orientated and civil.”

First of all, we’re not talking about censorship, per se. We’re talking about moderation. Irby: please put that in your lexicon next time you go on a rant against your readers.

Secondly, this is a misuse of technology. Irby even quotes the reason why in-house moderation of comments is a misuse of technology (though he doesn’t know it, yet):

Chris Satullo, editorial page editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, said: “Newspapers are one of the four or five institutions in a community that help the community define itself. We’re part of the civic glue. We’re the place where the community thinks out loud.”

This is becoming increasingly less true as the Web forms clusters of like-minded people into communities about ideas, subjects, geographical location, among infinite other possibilities. Newspapers are shutting themselves out of the discourse.

Furthermore, top-down moderation (or ‘censorship’) is not the way to enforce community standards. You shouldn’t be the judge. The community should be.

If the community is getting unruly, let the community weed out the nonsense. Policing the chats will only eat away at your time and your sanity, particularly on hot-button issues.

There are other methods out there. Some are better than others, but all are better than inhibiting discussion.

  • Ask your readers to use their real names.
  • Ask your readers to provide you with an email address.
  • Ask your readers to register an account.
  • Moderate the users first post, then let the rest flow in.
  • Add a ‘report this comment’ button to each comment.
  • Create voting mechanisms similar to Digg or YouTube where crap falls below a viewing threshold.

But most importantly:

  • Be a neighbor.
  • Engage your community.
  • Don’t dictate the rules of engagement.
  • Don’t dictate the tone of the community.
  • Don’t hinder your ability to let your community think out loud.

I know you’re trying to do what’s right for your site, but don’t do it under the thin veil of “community standards.”

Don’t be lazy.

Don’t be pompous.

The end. Or is it?

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Check out It's randomonium! Or, if you're so inclined, take a gander at what I'm reading and my del.icio.us links.

Trackback URL: Don’t be pompous.

Tags: , , , ,