The Victorian blogging code mooted last week by Jimbo "Wiki" Wales and Tim 2.0'Reilly has been given short shrift by web users. After threatening a set of rules to clamp down on rudeness last week, O'Reilly posted a first draft on Sunday. The code would introduce "badges" to show how a site complies with the webby duo's take …
My house my rules
Let me be the first to say, "Badges! We don't need no stink'n badges." Yes it needed to be said.
Currently I'm setting up a site powered by Geeklog and as such open to comments. My considered opinion on the issue of blog ethics is summed up as my house my rules. Unless a site is overseen by a governing body the rules of each site stem from the owner/editor. There's no need to comment on the extent of the hubris in the announcement from Messers Wales and O'Reilly.
Don't like what's printed don't read it. I ( Quirk ) was banned from slashdot for reasons I was never able to ascertain. I wrote three emails trying to find out why, didn't get a clear answer, left and never returned. The prerogative to ban someone or censor material should rest with the site owner. If you can't deal with criticism or rejection then the time you spend bemoaning your fate on the web might be better spent in therapy.
just my loose change
WARNING: NASTY WORDS FOLLOW. DON'T READ OR LINK TO.
I'm sure they're both well-meaning, but at the same time so self-righteous, naive and hopelessly clumsy as only these self-appointed New Age gurus manage to be.
Would Tim _Waterstone_ get involved in this sort of caper ? I doubt it. He'd stick to bookselling. Tim O'Reilly would be well advised to do the same, and not risk his business and employee's jobs by getting himself into dangerous waters, A geek backlash against O'Reilly businesses would be sight to behold - reminiscent of the fallout of a certain prawn sandwich analogy.
And it isreally amazing how succesful Ms Sierra's apparently manipulative tactics are proving to be.
We don' need no steenking badges.
Anonymous trolls are the bane of Usenet and seem to have now become a problem in the "blogosphere". If sites just banned them, the tone would settle down considerably. I belong to several large mailing lists (over 1500 members) that have had no troubles with trolls because of a requirement that a live email address be provided AND monitored for pings. I also belong to a few Usenet NG that are robomoderated. Once a user is vetted, the robot takes over. The moderators (of which I am one) have a limited role.
At the first sign of abuse, cut the jerk off.
And I agree, don't feed the troll.
Trolls aren't the problem
I think you're mistaken, Dillon. Anonymous trolls are never a problem on blogs since somebody owns that blog and all that is published on it. If you comment on my blog, I own your comment, not you.
Therefore, as certain posters of 800 page diatribes about the glories of Suckat Life have found, i reserve the right to edit their postmodern literal wanking into something shorter, more readable and - for me at least - immensely more amusing.
In fact, the act of making these (only slightly malicious) edits also amuses me.
Now, if we can only kill the spambots...
Ahhh Death Threats
Without genuine freedom of speech democracy fails. However, I don't think death threats necessarily fit within what could reasonably be called "genuine freedom of speech".
How about we get politicians to make death threats in public against all trolls in the 'house' under parliamentary privilege (or the equivalant in your juisdiction), although I still don't think that would qualify as democracy in action somehow.
Anyway, just a little trolling...
- NASA rover Curiosity drills HOLE in MARS 'GOLF COURSE'
- +Comment 'Private Facebook' site Ello: There's a REASON we're still in beta. SPAMMERS!
- WHY did Sunday Mirror stoop to slurping selfies for smut sting?
- Business is back, baby! Hasta la VISTA, Win 8... Oh, yeah, Windows 9
- Shellshock: 'Larger scale attack' on its way, warn securo-bods