the O'Reilly draft code of conduct is based loosely on the blogher one isn't it (he mentions this at http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html)
http://blogher.org/community-guidelines this is a good one "We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person." I think the proposal's alright actually. I wish more message boards/irc systems/maillists had this in the past, though they also tend to be self/community moderated online systems which even out after a while. obviously not everyone will follow the guidelines anyway, and there's always the flyby posters but the guidelines seem pretty commonsense/logical to me as they are. not sure I'll feel the need to add a badge to any of my sites/communities I'm part of but I don't see anything too unusual there. maybe some parents might like the badged sites as ok for younger readers? kath --- > > It sounds like the blogosphere is putting together their own "league of > decent bloggers". > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070409-prohibition-and- > candelight-marches-a-code-of-conduct-for-bloggers.html > > tiny url: http://tinyurl.com/24udle > > (So much for arstechnica's insane url length.) > > Anyway, the whole article makes me laugh... our own "league of decent > vloggers" shows remarkable foresight in pre-parodying the issue > before the > blogging space even grappled with it. Perhaps we could organize some > good > -- http://www.aliak.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
