Blogging talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct/No anonymous comments

From Blogging

< Blogging talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct

I think this is a key guideline which will greatly increase the quality of online discourse if it comes to be more widely used. A situation where the commenters are registed with the site, in my opinion, always leads to better, more mature discussion. Also, it may be beneficial for sites not to allow people to post comments automatically, but rather have the webmaster screen them and then print select comments that make valid points. Some sites thrive on the discussion that takes place in the comments seciton (the onion AV club is a good example) but there are others where the comments section constantly devolves in to flame wars and pointless digressions from the point.

A site I really enjoy, wooster collective, stopped accepting anonymous comments under the reasoning that they didn't want people using their site as a forum to attack people without revealing themselves. Wooster still allows people to contact the site easily, but they only print comments they feel add something (and they don't just print comments from known artists, random people can get their thoughts printed) and I think this model works well.

I have to disagree. IMO, any gain in the quality of discourse is outweighed by discouraging people from joining the discussion. Any sort of e-mail address verification system is going to make it significantly more difficult for casual users to comment. I read many blogs, but I'm not really a 'regular' commenter on any of them, but if something catches my interest, or I feel I've got something useful to add to the conversation, I'll go ahead an comment. However, if a blog requires any sort of registration or address verification, I'm not going to bother (I probably wouldn't make this comment if I'd hadn't been able to do it quickly and anonymously). I suspect a lot of people are in the same boat as I am. Requiring registration or address verification is just going to put them off commenting entirely. Filtering out these 'casual' commenters will make the conversation on a blog a lot more insular. The regulars will keep commenting, but lurkers or new readers are going to be less likely to speak up. This is a pretty significant loss, particularly in terms of diversity, since these are the people who are most likely to say something different. 71.199.58.125 07:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a valid point. It's a matter of tradeoffs. But would a sufficient equivalent for taking the badge be to assure your users that you will individually approve all anonymous comments before they are made visible? --Sethop 07:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Like you, when I have something to contribute to a blog that I mostly just read, I post with my own credentials as a "guest". I don't like registering first just so I will be able to contribute to the discussion. Now if for example I am a frequent commenter to that blog already, then that's the only time I register for my own account - sole reason, is to protect my identity, since my name appears frequently already on that particular blog. If we will force all blogs who will agree and conform to these suggested rules, [1]then we might as well remove the commenting feature of all blog platforms, [2]open up our own forums. No, I'm not being sarcastic, just showing that it is better to use a forum system for comments and discussions if we will force our readers to register just to leave comments. After all, that's what forums are for, right? Laibeus Lord

I find that there is a direct proportional relationship between the number of website I give my email address to, and the amount of spam I receive. The problem with providing this info to web-entities, is that it increases the users vulnerability to Identity theft, in that the more accounts you create, the more sites cyber-criminals can steal your credentials from. Since many users use the same password for web-mail that they use for their online-banking, the keys to their personal fortune are likely sitting in someone else's database, perhaps halfway around the world. Blog sites' accounts databases need not meet the same rigorous security standards that banks are required to comply with. Not everything needs to be "secure", and if we don't make sensible distinctions on what does and does not require multi-factor authentication, we risk reducing the effectiveness of security where it really matters. On a more personal note, I find it offensive when web-entities require me to reduce my personal safety and security, in order to augment their own, and thats what I see in this proposal. I am sorry to the individuals that believed that this was necessary, and I sympathize with their plight, but I cannot condone this policy. -Franklin Thomas

I agree with "no anonymous comments" for the reason stated above (quality of discourse), and so that persons may filter their own thoughts in a constructive way. Is that "self-censoring" or editing? IMO the main problem with anonymity is that dialogue degenerates into name-calling, threats, insults etc. Yes, we want to have a free and open exchange of ... what? ideas, opinions, information about a particular topic on a blog. But is it useful to allow unfiltered comments that are irrelevent or rude? I don't think that registering an email address is necessarily an obstacle to open communication. One can use the web-portal email services or "Hotmail" that are not tied to a particular computer address or give up one's real name. Furthermore, there is at least one website (wheresgeorge.com) that allows registered users to exchange anonymous emails privately. ---soiluna

What's the point of the email address? It allows you to tie the comment to other comments using the same email address, that's all. One can easily get a new throwaway email address for each comment, and if there aren't services that allow this today, there will be tomorrow. Furthermore, it says nothing at all about liability, because it cannot readily be traced. No, either use a means of authentication that allows each comment to be traced to a Real World identity who can be sued or prosecuted -- or else not, but don't pretend you are in any way affecting who will and won't post what; plenty of people post outrageous flames under their real names, anyhow. --Johnwcowan 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Shii, a programmer who has contributed to the open-source anonymous message board software Wakaba and Kareha, has written an essay on the pros and cons of anonymous posting. To summarize, registration keeps out good users, registration lets in bad users, registration attracts trolls, and anonymity counters vanity. For this reason I am strongly opposed to disallowing anonymous posts. Anonymous

I'm also strongly opposed to disallowing anonymous posts. First, anyone can use any random name & email for registration, so I fail to see what kind of actual guarantee it would give as to the nature of the people or intentions behind any posts. Second, anonimity is one of the biggest attributes of the internet. It has both positive and negative consequences. We shouldn't try to get rid of it just because we're not totally used to it yet. Finally, anonymity is a very random way to choose who posts, since there are a thousand reasons why someone may wish to remain anonymous on any given topic, in any given place. Every other guideline in your code of conduct refers directly to actual conduct. The anonymity section doesn't refer to any conduct whatsoever. Or rather, it refers to as many types of conduct as there are reasons for wanting anonymity. It seems very out of place, and very unreasonable. -anon

Anonymity is not a brake on useless flamewars, think of Ann Coulter! Anonymity is, as many posters to this section have pointed out, essential to preserve open and honest discussion. There are times when anonymity (true anonymity, not obfuscation) is essential to the poster. Apply the 'chinese dissident' rule: How many chinese dissidents will be endangered by the loss of anonymity. They will face the choice of silence or exposure. Even logging IP addresses of comments makes those comments subject to subpoena, whatever information you keep can be demanded by governments, and jurisdictional boundaries are weak.

No anonymous comments is *the* dealbreaker for this whole idea. I will not be agreeing with anything you say as long as this remains here.

Anonymous comments are the very foundation of blogging. Without them, you're just another media shill.

Essentially, it's impossible to disallow anonymous comments anyway. There exists no method of ensuring someone's identity online. Requiring a valid e-mail address is a joke. When I come to a site that requires e-mail addresses, I type "yourmom@dodgeit.com". Works every time. It is a valid e-mail address, so even going to the length of an MX record check won't work. So basically, beyond the obviously bad ethical implications of disallowing anonymous comments, it's impossible to enforce. This rule sucks even worse than the rest.

I think the argument in favor of anonymous commenting is often the wolf of the profit motive dressed in the sheep's clothing of free speech. By this I mean, allowing anonymous commenting lowers barriers to entry which increases traffic which increases ad revenues. Inflammatory discussions, like car wrecks, draw interested rubberneckers which increases traffic which increases revenues. Money...it's a gas.

And when we are on the subject of the very real importance of anonymity for people living under repressive regimes, can we please make a distinction between anonymous posts that are expressions of courage and those that are expressions of cowardice?

The other day I read a blog entry that featured a female CEO in a video demonstrating her company's product. Of the 45 comments, 13 referenced the CEO's looks, her sexuality or her sexual appeal. Of those 13, 11 were anonymous. I'd be very interested to know how many of those anonymous commenters would have had the courage to post if their words were attached to their identity.

I think there should always be a place on the internet for courageous anonymity. But the anonymity that is the hideout of cowards, not in my house.

I would like a badge for my blog that reads something to the effect of: We = Our Words. Firefangle 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I too feel that eliminating anonymous comments is a step in the wrong direction. I personally have failed to contribute to a discussion because registration was necessary. And registration WILL NOT prevent (or likely even slow down) trolls. This is a barrier to entry that is easy to bypass with ill intent, but keeps good people from making useful contributions.

I will just add that anonymity is not a crime. If someone wants to say something he knows but by saying it he would put his life in danger for example, there's no reason for any blog to disallow anonymous comments. In fact, people in some countries like China are being chased for what they publish, so I think that without anonymity the goverments will have even more power to control the blogosphere.

[edit] Slashdot Solution

I don't understand why bloggers are still reinventing the wheel. Slashdot invented self-moderation years ago which solves most of the problems this Code is dealing with.

Readers use "mod-points" to score the comments of others. The number of mod-points they have is based on their "karma" a measure of the value of their contribution to the site so far. Nothing is censored but any comment that isn't particularly insightful or funny can only be read by clicking through a link. Anonymous comments start with a lower score. Not only are trolls and flamers deterred but readers can skim all the high quality comments quickly and easily. It's all about improving the signal to noise ratio.

Now there is a need for a Wikipedia-style statement of what is a good comment, what makes a comment worthy of mod-points, but there's no need for censorship, compulsory registration, laborious moderation by individual bloggers or anything else. We have the technology - let's use it. James Ferguson

The 'Slashdot solution' is backwards. An anonymous comment is one that stands on its own merits and therefore doesn't need its writer's past to back it up. Karma systems invariably tend to favor popular posters over insightful posts, and giving a lower starting score to anonymous comments causes them to never be weighed by readers in the first place.

if you find the popular posters lack insight, perhaps you're in the wrong community.

this method has worked brilliantly for thottbot.com; millions of threads full of epeen stroking and leet speak posts were trimmed down to just a few highlights per thread within months. --sullage

I agree "no anonymous comments" is a dealbreaker. I can see "no comments by unregistered users"--66.167.133.84 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond rejecting anonymity...

Whether it's OpenID (which I don't understand, personally) or simply better technology that can identify the anonymous, the profane, and the trolls in general, the answer is simple enough: put a name on the poster. People who behave like this do it because they can't be "caught." So catch them. Expose them.

I know from an acquaintance with a skilled techie--not a hacker, though he could be--that tracing the source for a post is not that difficult, and only the very skilled will know how to 'route' their post so as to be untraceable.

If blogs install Finder software with a warning that inappropriate posts will be exposed, what are the odds that the nastiness will subside? Very good, I'd say.

Plus we'd be helping the economy--generating another level of software and expertise for people to create, sell, market, and teach.

LL

It's a good point and I agree. Though we will need to be very careful, especially when dealing with East Asians, as the most popular Internet access point here are iCafes, and most ISPs don't offer static IPs. If we can have a fool-proof system where we can be 100% sure the person we are going to expose is the troll or whatever, then why not? It's a very good suggestion, what we just need now is a very good system. Laibeus Lord

As far as Im concerned such ideas are dangerous on a number of levels. IP address alone is never enough, it always has to be backed up with further investigations such as comparing writing style, known history, etc of the violator. If this stuff isnt handled responsibly then you get into problems with creating more victims instead of fingering the perpetrators. How easy it is to maintain anonimity depends on who you are up against. Governments will usually be able to track someone down if their resources are directed at a serious event involving the net. Amateur investigations in the blogosphere have caught various people quite sucessfully, usually because the perpetrator is none too bright, but Id certainly be wary of any code that went overboard telling would be commenters that those who run the site have a right to track you down. So be careful here, dont do a HP. This is just another area where the code needs to tread carefully to avoid measures designed to prevent online intimidation from becoming a tool bloggers could use to intimidate contributors. - Steve Elbows

[edit] Point 5

'5. We encourage anonymous comments. We allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than being anonymous, but discourage it as vain. '

ENCOURAGE in the leading staement, but the weaker 'allow' and the opposite 'discourage' in the commentary. I suggest 'We PERMIT or ALLOW anonymous comments'. Jalera1

[edit] Removing "We do not allow anonymous comments"

Replaced following contents with original.

We allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than being anonymous, but discourage it as vain.

While this is an outstanding idea in general, I find the specific exclusion of the right of anonymity to be threatening. I agree that people ought not threaten others, but there may well be times when I feel a need to post something that, if my actual name were known, could be very damaging to me outside the context of the actual comment. For example, were I to blog about problems at my company, pointing out, let's say, a data breach, it would be good for the community to know about but dangerous for me to be associated with. Now, if this is just an email address, and that is ALL, I can go make up one like 123abc@hotmail.com and submit that. I am still anonymous. But if this is asking me for a REAL email, one that can be tied back to me, then I think we will stifle the free submission of ideas.

By not allowing anonymity one stifles the chance that an actual professional, certified in their field, will make a comment. The best posters don't always have enough time to register and create a name. However the people who do have enough time to go through that process are the people least wanted to make a comment, children, trolls, and other internet do no gooders. -anon

How could anyone blame anonymous for what is posted unless they themselves posted anonymously. They would find that anonymity is extremely useful as a shield against so called internet bullying. If someone is being flamed, well consider the fact that one is anonymous and the person posting does not actually know who one is. Therefore any posts that are flames can be ignored as they are groundless and irrelevant. -anon

People who post with a name or pseudonym would never understand the point of Anonymous. To use a name is to rely on it for its weight, rather than through logic and skill. People should be able to look on information without predetermined bias and without such a fundamental right, they will fully lose their ability to judge what has merit and what does not. -anon

210.23.138.169 09:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with that! A post should stand on its own merits, not reputation.

Please excuse me if I'm not putting this in the right place. I support anonymous posting on my blog, but including an 'OPTIONAL' module/icon to label those blogs who do not support it, is reasonable. There seem to be several different policies available, so maybe there need to be more gradations of icons on this. There's "No anon at all" and "Anon will be held for moderation (expected wait time one day)" etc. Aiui, this icon project is not about some whole monolithic code to be imposed on all blogs, but a way for individual blog owners to show quickly what THEIR standards are. -- anon (edited my own and combined my comments)

[edit] Removing further discussion

The following was added to this section in the article. Moving it to here.

This requirement is essentially worthless since anyone can get a free e-mail address from about 500 sites in about 30 seconds. It also ignores the need, in some cases, for some people legitimately to comment anonymously because if the comments were known to be from them they could be subject to harassment, loss of employment, imprisonment or murder.

The EFF, in a letter to an organization trying to force Craigslist to disclose the identity of an anonymous poster, had this to say:

“

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the First Amendment right to speak anonymously. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found. 119 S. Ct. 636, 645-646 (1999); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm., 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). These cases assert the important role played by anonymous or pseudonymous writings through history, from the literary efforts of Shakespeare and Mark Twain through the explicitly political advocacy of the Federalist Papers. Accordingly, due process requires that disclosures which impair these fundamental rights only allowed when there is a demonstration of a compelling subordinating interest. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 463 (1958); Bates v City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524 (1960). Open letter to Shearman

”

While the First Amendment does not apply to private parties, we should be careful to respect the rights of other people to speak - especially when a statement is the truth - even anonymously. Although the privilege to speak can be abused, it has been shown that open and free commentary has been much more effective in allowing people to be fully informed.

210.23.138.169 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section 5 : Email address

" 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. "

I can see this severely limiting comments. The only way I know to validate an email address is to send an email and wait for the user to click a unique link in the email.

I suspect most people just wouldn't go to the effort.

[edit] 'Name withheld'

Some people use pseudonyms for the same reason that this code of conduct has become necessary -- to protect themselves from harm. Why not adopt a similar policy to traditional print publications -- the publisher/editor can agree to withold a person's real name from publication, as long as s/he knows who that person really is. I realise that the immediacy of the net makes that more complicated to upheld, but there must be ways around it.

Apologies in advance if someone has already suggested something like this, and I just missed it in the density of text.

moved this comment of my own

Hubs	Entertainment \| Gaming \| Sports \| Toys \| Biggest wikis \| see all...
Featured	Cocktails \| Recipes \| Green \| Help Videos
Wikia is hiring	Gaming Intern \| Sales \| General hiring
About Wikia \| Contact Wikia \| Terms \| MediaWiki \| GFDL \| Advertise on Wikia \| Privacy