As far as I knew, no one was talking about imposing anything on anyone. I thought this was an attempt to identify a common creed that many bloggers and videobloggers could adopt as they share in its mutual values of respect, understanding, etc. It seems to me that there would be absolutely no reason for their to be one code either.
Think of it like Creative Commons licensing; you could find a code of ethics if you choose that fit your own ideological viewpoint and elect to brand your site with it. Or, perhaps you can't find an existing code and choose to craft your own. Or, as you personally may feel could decide not to adopt any formalized code at all. Adding one new means for people to synchronize their own personal ethics as a media maker, or journalist, or whatever, may not be a bad idea. It is certainly a better approach than the rather ominous suggestion put forward by Deborah Saunders stating: "The courts are going to end up deciding who journalists are, because, unfortunately, this administration is really pushing the envelope in jailing journalists, and it won't end with the Bush administration. It will get bigger as people point fingers in many ways, and that means the courts are going to decide who journalists are. You may not like it, but that's the way it is." I don't think that's the way it has to be, but I am uncertain as to whether such volunteer codes will help or hinders the governments efforts to register and license bloggers and other journalists. Josh Enric wrote: > > Human values of respect, understanding, etc. are natural to express > and act on. To impose a code of conduct is an insult and mockery of > those values. > > -- Enric > -======- > http://cirne.com <http://cirne.com> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, Josh Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hey everyone, this is my first post after being released! It feels good > > to return to the land of message groups... > > > > I just read Tim O'Reilly's proposed draft (I haven't examined its > > current state on wikia yet), and I'm quite displeased with this code. > > For one thing, it's focal point seems to be on comments and not > original > > content. It seems a bit puzzling to me that I can't sign onto this code > > *and* allow anonymous comments. Is this about creating a set of > > principles that the blogger adheres to, or is this about creating a set > > of principles for the commenter in order to establish a "safe" place > for > > them to engage in an open dialogue. > > > > From my vantage point this code seems less about the blogger and more > > about the commenters and I feel that merging the two of these together > > in this way is deceptive and tactically unsound. > > > > Josh > > > > Steve Watkins wrote: > > > > > > The thing is that most of the draconian elements to their proposals, > > > is already technically covered by law in many parts of the world. Its > > > just a question of there being any resources to follow up every > > > potential violation. Imagine how many libelous comments have been made > > > on the net, compared to how many every go anywhere near a court. > > > > > > As for the rest of it, I presume that most states rely on society, > > > peer pressure, accepted norms, to provide some control over how civil > > > people are to eachother. Its not going to be regulated against very > > > often. Where the law does apply it often drags way behind the society > > > the law serves, eg the stand up comedians & rock stars who had to > > > endure lewd conduct type charges in decades past. But a culture thats > > > learnt to emulate such behaviour, teenagers who cant get enough of it, > > > and cant get enough of the internet, along with similar stuff from > > > many adults out there, makes it hard to see how the sheer volume of > > > this stuff could be policed by the state or volunteers on the net. > > > > > > All I know is that this code isnt going to intimidate any > > > intimidators. Intimidation is a powerful tool that gets people to > > > shutup far more effectively than this code will, and that is a tragedy > > > but a human reality. There are many ironies in this field, such as the > > > potential intimidation w would face if lots of people in the > > > blogosphere attempted to deeply explore intimidation and coercion and > > > how humans use them, and how the internet is merely a new light shon > > > onto this sick underbelly of human 'civilisation', rather than a new > > > and shocking thing. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> > > > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, "Charles Iliya Krempeaux" > > > <supercanadian@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I have a really bad feeling about all this. > > > > > > > > I know people have good intentions with all this. But alot of things > > > > start out that way. > > > > > > > > Hopefully this "code" stay voluntary. (And people aren't forced to > > > obey it.) > > > > > > > > > > > > See ya > > > > > > > > On 4/10/07, WWWhatsup <joly@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html> > > > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html>> > > > > > > > > > > 04.08.07 > > > > > Tim O'Reilly > > > > > > > > > > Tim O'Reilly > > > > > Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct > > > > > > > > > > When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I > > > suggested some > > > > > ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't actually put > > > forth a draft that > > > > > people could subscribe to. We're not quite there yet, but we have > > > a plan. > > > > > > > > > > We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted on > > > bloggingcode.org, > > > > > and created a badge that sites can display if they want to link to > > > that code of conduct. > > > > > Civility Enforced Badge > > > > > > > > > > But because we want a period of review, we don't want to finalize > > > that code yet. I've > > > > > put a draft below (and you'll see it's based closely on the > > > BlogHer Community > > > > > Guidelines that I linked to last week.) But we're also working > > > with wikia to put the > > > > > draft through a wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com. > > > (There's an easy > > > > > to remember shortcut link at > http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC <http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC> > > > <http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC > <http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC>>) > > > Please feel free to > > > > > join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging others to do so. > > > We'll post the final > > > > > version on bloggingcode.org, along with the html to display the > > > badge and link to the > > > > > code. > > > > > > > > > > (While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want it > > > to be a moving target > > > > > once people have signed up for it.) > > > > > > > > > > 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 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. > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > WWWhatsup NYC > > > > > http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com> <http://pinstand.com > <http://pinstand.com>> - http://punkcast.com <http://punkcast.com> > > > <http://punkcast.com <http://punkcast.com>> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. > > > > > > > > charles @ reptile.ca > > > > supercanadian @ gmail.com > > > > > > > > developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ <http://ChangeLog.ca/> > <http://ChangeLog.ca/ <http://ChangeLog.ca/>> > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > > > Make Television > > > http://maketelevision.com/ <http://maketelevision.com/> > <http://maketelevision.com/ <http://maketelevision.com/>> > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > > > Cars, Motorcycles, Trucks, and Racing... > > > http://tirebiterz.com/ <http://tirebiterz.com/> > <http://tirebiterz.com/ <http://tirebiterz.com/>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
