Science bloggers meeting at the North Carolina Science Blogging Conference have been debating the need for a code of conduct. You may have come across some pretty offensive and aggressive commenting from science bloggers – I know I have! (See my Commenting Policy bottom right). I think it’s a great idea. O’Reilly and others have developed a blogger’s code of conduct.
Here’s the first draft –
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 othersWe 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.
What do you think? Anything in that draft you wouldn’t agree with?
Heroes Not Zombies 
Hear hear!
Let me know when you get the final draft!
Where does the knowingly false and misrepresentative of a profession fit in? I frequently read lies about homeopathy (in addition to the ignorant statements). Is that okay as long as it doesn’t get personal?
I don’t know the answer myself, and I wouldn’t take legal action, but I would definitely delete comments at some point.
I also see a problem with #5. Requiring an email address doesn’t actually stop anonymous commenting, although I require it on my blog anyhow because it’s a good thing to encourage.
Hi, John, yes, it’s an interesting issue, that one of attacks based on generalisation. I think such attacks are NOT OK. Those kind of attacks are the basis of much prejudice, whether that be about sex, race, religion or professional group. I think such an attack can reveal something about the individual making the statement and I reckon the decision to publish or not publish is then a personal and strategic one. Does the commenter undermine his or her whole case by making such an attack? Yes, they do. Do you, the blogger, want to publish it? Well, I think that’s a personal judgement.
The point 5, about not accepting anonymous comments links in with 2 and 3 for me. Not many of the “anti-homeopathy” commenters seem to be prepared to be honest and open about who they are, and, frankly, if someone telephoned my house refusing to say who they were and launched into personal comments and attacks, I wouldn’t find that any more acceptable than if they turned up at the front door wearing balaclavas! Anonymous commenting falls into that category for me.
I have responded to anonymous commenters and I have published their comments but I think the practice of anonymous commenting is bad practice. I much prefer to get to know someone personally. By far the most satisfying conversations that I have through the blog are the personal ones, not the anonymous ones.
I agree Bob. I chose wordpress as my blog platform hoping to find considerate people, and that is what I have encountered.
I figure there is enough meaness in the world to go around, and responsible bloggers have no obligation to help perpetuate it.
Dr. B