Many angry arrows have been aimed in the direction of Cipher Mysteries of late (mostly by a single vociferous individual), asserting that it has got its moderation policy Just Plain Wrong.
Obviously, differences of opinion about what comments should be moderated in or out hardly amount to breaking news. But the reactive rhetoric attached to these attacks has recently reached a somewhat fevered pitch, where the blog posts being made about comment moderation had become much worse than the comments they were related to.
As a result, I thought it was high time I trawled the web to see what, as of mid-2016, is considered best practice for bloggers. After all, knowledge is power, ain’t it?
“The Blogger’s Code of Conduct”
In 2007, Tim O’Reilly proposed a Blogger’s Code of Conduct, to try to promote civility online (specifically in blogs). The six points (which he also tried to connect to badges) were:
1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.
2. We won’t say anything online that we wouldn’t say in person.
3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.
4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.
5. We do not allow anonymous comments.
6. We ignore the trolls.
For all the good ideas in there, O’Reilly was quick to recognize that he had severely underestimated the size of the issues. In practice, each of his six points has a huge number of weak spots:
1. moderating is full of edge cases (e.g. at what point does someone expressing a strong feeling about something actually become abusive? If someone doesn’t like a comment, does that mean that that comment is genuinely offensive or do they just not like to see opinions different to their own? So, to what notional person should any given comment be deemed offensive? etc etc) to the point that the notion of a single catch-all “responsibility” umbrella is woefully inadequate.
2. it is ridiculously easy for someone to cut and paste what you have written or commented or moderated and quote it out of context to deliberately distort what you said or allowed to be said. And (moreover) to say in person where? In a bar, in a church, at a football match? Given that context forms ~90% of communication, it’s almost impossible to write posts or comments that cannot be taken out of context and given a new, offensive meaning.
3. for a whole bundle of reasons, connecting privately first is something that almost never happens.
4. for a different (but very similar) bundle of reasons, it is extraordinarily rare for anyone to step forward to “take action”. Again, this almost never happens.
5. it is very hard to prevent anonymous commenting. Even tiny children are now indoctrinated never to disclose their real names or any information that might help identify them online: and from there it is the smallest of technical steps to full anonymity. It turns out that anonymity is less of a true/false condition than a spectrum of ‘anonymousness’ that is defined mainly by the cost of de-anonymizing that anonymity. So: how much time, effort and money should a moderator have to put in to determine what degree of anonymity a specific comment is employing?
6. trolls just like attention, and have many mechanisms for baiting people just below the threshold of not-OKness. At what point does a commenter become a troll? And anyway, according to whom are they a troll? And how can the people making that judgement tell that they are a troll? And what recourse can someone have if they are incorrectly accused of being a troll?
So it turns out that the main problem with O’Reilly’s proposal is that almost every aspect of blogging is a grey area, and that his approach for trying to make everything in the blogosphere OK is just too rigid and (as some critics put it) rather too corporate. He says that he’s more interested in promoting civility than in enforcing political correctness, but given the extraordinarily wide range of conversations and interactions that blog posts enable, imposing a single model upon them all seems destined never to work.
In my opinion, his heart was in the right place but he underestimated the scale and practical difficulties of the real-world problems by a factor of a hundred, to the point that his proposals weren’t fit for purpose.
Responsible Blogging
Numerous other angles have been proposed over the years. A post by Daniel Scocco proposed 10 Rules for Responsible Blogging, but which I think are far more concerned with transparency and professionalism than ‘responsibility’ as such:
1. Check your facts
2. Respect Copyright Law
3. Consider the implications
4. Control the comments on your blog
5. Give credit where credit is due
6. Disclose professional relationships
7. Disclose sponsored posts
8. Be transparent with affiliate links
9. Respect Tax Law
10. Avoid “blackhat” methods
Of course, many of these issues are covered by actual legislation.
For example, according to this UK ethical blogging blog, the Office of Fair Trading would like everyone to understand that “The integrity of information published online is crucial so that people can make informed decisions on how to spend their money. We expect online advertising and marketing campaigns to be transparent so consumers can clearly tell when blogs, posts and microblogs have been published in return for payment or payment in kind. We expect this to include promotions for products and services as well as editorial content.”
But this is more of a legislative angle than anything else, and many of the interesting questions are more to do with blogging ethics.
Rebecca Blood’s “Weblog’s Ethics”
Rebecca Blood’s take on Weblog Ethics is a slightly more journalistic angle:
“1. Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true.”
“2. If material exists online, link to it when you reference it.”
“3. Publicly correct any misinformation.”
“4. Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.”
“Post deliberately. If you invest each entry with intent, you will ensure your personal and professional integrity. […] History can be rewritten, but it cannot be undone. Changing or deleting words is possible on the Web, but possibility does not always make good policy. Think before you publish and stand behind what you write. If you later decide you were wrong about something, make a note of it and move on.”
“5. Disclose any conflict of interest.”
“6. Note questionable and biased sources.”
While Blood is solid on the foundations of positive blogging here, I think it’s fair to say that she doesn’t offer a very practical guide to the problematic issues of moderating and offence that caused O’Reilly’s proposal ship to hit so many rocks.
“A Bloggers’ Code of Ethics”
Even though it was clearly adapted from what was originally a journalism code of practice, there’s a lot to like about the Bloggers’ Code of Ethics, that came courtesy of CyberJournalist.net:
“1. Be Honest and Fair”
* Never plagiarize, but always identify and link to sources where practical.
* Ensure that what you write does not misrepresent, oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
* Never distort photos without disclosing what has been changed, and label all montages etc.
* Never publish information you know is inaccurate — and highlight doubt if publishing questionable information.
* “Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information”, and don’t misrepresent fact or context.
* “Distinguish factual information and commentary from advertising” and shun anything blurring the boundaries.
“2. Minimize Harm”
* “Treat sources and subjects as human beings deserving of respect.”
* “Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by Weblog content. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.”
* “Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.”
* “Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of information is not a license for arrogance.”
* “Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.”
* “Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.”
* “Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects, victims of sex crimes and criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.”
“3. Be Accountable”
* “Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.”
* “Explain each Weblog’s mission and invite dialogue with the public over its content and the bloggers’ conduct.”
* “Disclose conflicts of interest, affiliations, activities and personal agendas.”
* “Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence content. When exceptions are made, disclose them fully to readers.”
* “Be wary of sources offering information for favors. When accepting such information, disclose the favors.”
* “Expose unethical practices of other bloggers.”
* “Abide by the same high standards to which you hold others.”
Is this approaching “Best Practice For Bloggers”? In many ways, it is, insofar as it points itself squarely at Honesty, Non-Harmfulness and Accountability, three things which are hard to disagree with. Yet at the same time, I have to say that it’s not really tackling the basics.
And there are some really big basics none of the above has managed to cover.
Irresponsible Blogging Practices
Most of the unethical blogging practices you’ll find described on the web are to do with not disclosing that certain blog content has been paid-for or sponsored in some way. Which is fair enough.
Yet there are many more blogging practices going on out there that I would consider acutely unethical. And having recently found myself on the receiving end of what I would consider a long string of them, I thought it might be helpful to compile a list:
1. Theft, Misrepresentation, and Libel
* Writing posts culled from posts and comments all over the web
* Never giving attribution or credit to your sources
* Constantly blurring the boundaries between truth, speculation, and outright fiction
* Never posting anything that can be easily separated out into truth, speculation, and outright fiction
* Exaggerating your website’s own importance and telling lies about other people’s websites
* Writing posts asserting that a particular individual who disagrees with you has a specific mental disorder, helpfully cutting and pasting sections of text from Wikipedia to help demonstrate the accuracy of that claim [Two people have done this to me in the last six months or so, with two very different disorders].
* Telling hateful lies about other people, but then quietly deleting those lies from the website “once they have served their purpose”.
2. Baiting, Deception, and False Closure
* Writing posts aimed squarely at an individual.
* Writing posts openly baiting a particular individual.
* Writing posts openly baiting a particular individual, waiting for them to comment, then completely changing the sense of the text in the post to try to present the commenter in a bad light.
* Responding to critical or comments with a snarky, hostile, superior comment and then immediately closing comments on that post.
* Selectively editing (or often outright deleting) commenters’ comments to remove any sections that don’t happen to paint the blogger/moderator in a favourable light.
* Closing comments and then selectively editing the comments to remove any that are not favourable to the moderator.
* Claiming ‘victory’ in comments, then deleting any incoming comments that might run counter to that claim.
* Changing the title of posts to aim them (after the event) at individuals.
* Changing the title of baiting posts to pretend (after the event) that it wasn’t aimed at individuals.
* Putting up unbelievably hostile, libelous, bait-filled posts but then quietly deleting them if things get too hot.
3. Trolls, Stalkers, and Safe Havens
Sadly, you may recognize some or all of the following patterns of behaviour:
* If you leave a comment on my website that doesn’t accord 100% with my views, I will either delete your comment or post a hostile rebuttal comment specifically designed to piss you off
* If you disagree with me, you are a troll
* If you disagree with people who blogs I admire, you are a troll
* If you use a proxy server, you are a troll
* If you sympathize with someone I don’t trust, you are a troll
* If I believe you are a troll, I feel justified in openly publishing your IP address(es) and your email address(es)
* If I believe you are a troll, I feel justified in saying anything I like to you, no matter how disgusting
* If you publish a comment on your website from people who don’t like me, they are trolls and you are a disgrace
* If you publish a comment about me from someone I have loudly pissed off on my blog, your website is nothing but a safe haven for trolls and you personally are a despicable, unethical pervert.
* If I think your website acts as a safe haven for trolls, I will denounce you as a despicable troll-lover to all the domain experts whom I know you rely upon: and I will make sure that those domain experts are so disgusted by your sympathy for such modern-day devils that they don’t return your emails or calls. But that’s not actually “libel”, because… I say so.
Oh, and if you honestly think I’m making any part of the above three sections up, you have no idea at all about the depths a few irresponsible people can – and do – plumb.
“Best Practice For Bloggers”, Really?
Tim O’Reilly’s idealistic-sounding proposal for more civility in the blogosphere seems a world away from my own experience of the last year (particularly during the last few months): Daniel Scocco’s “responsible blogging” barely touches on my concerns, while Rebecca Blood and CyberJournalist.net’s angles on blogging ethics seem to assume everyone out there is journalistically sparring according to a rather refined set of Marquis of Queensberry-style rules.
Clearly they’re not.
What people keep telling me to do when I yet again come up against what to me – and probably to almost all other bloggers, I believe – seems like unbelievably irresponsible and unethical blogging is to just ignore it. Turn the other cheek. Take no notice: walk away.
Step away from the burning firework factory, sir. Nothing to see. Even if the fireworks do happen to be vividly writing your name across the virtual sky.
But there’s something deeply unethical about saying and doing nothing. As the CyberJournalist.net says, all bloggers should have an ethical obligation to “expose unethical practices of other bloggers.”
And yet the behaviour I have encountered would be unrecognizable to almost all other bloggers. Does what I have had thrown at me even fall in the same category as blogging? Or is it something that has grown into a sustained campaign of intensely personal, bitter hatred, merely shaped into what superficially resembles blog form? [*]
For me, the best practice for bloggers isn’t anything so idealistic as the four accounts I referred to above: but rather to read the list of Irresponsible Blogging Practices above and make sure you never – ever, ever – do any of it whatsoever. For any reason.
P.S.
[*] For the record, I don’t “loathe” or even “hate” the person who has been doing this. I just wish he would spend even 1% as much time facing himself in the mirror as he does trying to devise loathsome new ways to attack me.
I invite the readers of cipher mysteries to read my post and judge for themselves.
It will probably seem naive, but I apply the ‘dinner table’ rule. You do not say things to offend the host, nor the other persons seated with you.
To abuse the host is entirely beyond the pale and most charitably attributed to some temporary overindulgence.
Most of the damage which appears, finally, in the form of over-personal and abusive comment seems to me less an individual thing than a final discharge from noxious back-room and google-group malice. Trolls seem to chose their target only when they know that one is “ok” to attack, and that none of their cronies or the host will do other than keep silent or positively cheer them on.
People say that a troll’s aim is to gain personal attention, but from what I’ve seen it seems more like the sort of punch-in-the-face method which brainless people use to ensure that spouses or children know who’s boss and don’t open their mouths without permission. “To encourage the others”.
pete bowes: how can they sensibly judge that particular post for themselves when you have edited it so many times and in so many objectiona
lble ways?I invite the readers of cipher mysteries to steer well clear of your site.
I’d prefer to call it adding to the truth.
@ Nick & Pete: Two of my favorite bloggers. What really complicates my corresponding or leaving a post is the question I ask myself before hitting the ‘post a comment’ key: Will I be creating another ‘tempest in a teapot’ ?
@ Pete: Nick might explain this latest reference…….. or refer you to the particular discussion.
bd
Good blogging is as pornography:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said in his 1964 Order that he could not use words to describe pornography but “I know it when I see it.”
Bids, it’s not a tempest in a teapot when a comment alleging that I am a groomer of young, handicapped schoolgirls is let through on Cipher Mysteries.
oh, so over this topic.
Surely it’s quite simple: Don’t poke the dragon. If people don’t like how you run your site they’ll leave – only the most determined stay in the shadows, waiting for an opportunity to dig the boot in…but there’s little you can do about that (and I think most of the regulars here know who those turkeys are) – and you’ve know doubt noticed by now that he who cries “TROLL” the loudest tends to be the troll…
I’ve seen one blog get very personal at attacking “dissenters” and it annoys me when this one turns a similar direction – especially given most of it is aimed at one particular subscriber (who ironically claims to be a pedant for truth despite specialising in fiction – go figure?).
I think sometimes everyone needs to take a deep breath and ignore that which they don’t like. The only way you’ll get rid of trolls completely is by shutting down your site (which I don’t think you’d want). Beyond that, feed them as little as possible and accept that:
1) There are loonies out there
2) Not everyone will always agree with you
3) People who DO disagree, may very well be in category #1, but they aren’t necessarily (and sometimes it’s safe to ignore posts when they don’t fit with your view)
4) Everyone is a keyboard warrior when you allow anonymity
5) A lot of people online (and on this blog) have their own agendas – some might be trolling, but I think most are trying to promote something for their own gain – and there’s no such thing as bad publicity (these arguments drive people to their sites)
6) all of us will always think we can run the site better or different – but very few of us are running our own
Moderating is a pain in the arse, but there’s 2 extremes (which cause conflict, as you’ve seen here) – on the one hand you have “ultimate freedom of speech” – which allows everyone to be as crazy as they want, on the other you have “fully vetted posts” – which runs the risk of being accused of deliberately removing posts that disagree and ensuring only agreeable comments make it through. Somewhere in between is some middle ground (but as you’ve mentioned countless times before it’s difficult to find that balance when you actually get large numbers of comments – and I notice that those accusing you of insufficient scrutiny have significantly less – either because they over-vet (I’m fairly certain at least one site whose principle contributer may not see eye to eye with you simply doesn’t publish comments that disagree); or because they attract a large number of nasties (which is possible) and delete the majority (although at least one site seems to allow and even encourage the nasties and replies with a flurry of blogs aimed at a single “dissenter” – and ironically cries “foul” the most); or because they simply haven’t the same audience. It’s not for me to speculate which it is (I don’t actually know, obviously, but I have some ideas).
Don’t poke the dragon; do not feed the trolls; insert another analogy here. Don’t take the twits personally – you’re only encouraging them. If you ignore them they’ll go away and preach their “truths” to their faithful – and I suspect even the worst of them will forget about you before 5 nasty posts about you as long as you don’t respond to a single one. When they don’t get the attention they crave from you, they’ll go find it elsewhere….
Sorry Nick. Got excited and posted without reading the entire post (I guess that’s been your point about “things are gonna need to change”). I think you’ve addressed everything I’ve said above (including the “let them be bit”)….
@ xlamb (and any other wannabe trolls) : You are [making a big mistake] every time you accuse (nonsensically) other persons/web hosts of any kind of malfeasance. The malfeasance which is occurring is yours, alone. Also, there is more than a hint of your having a mood disorder of some kind or other. Get help — you’ll feel a lot better about yourself; as well as maybe getting some validating feedback to your comments.
@ Nick, I’m trying to keep my teakettle at a simmer (rather than at a boiling steam-kettle whistle). Sincerely,
bd
I’m certainly intrigued why ‘Major Crime’ would be interested….
They’d be one of the last groups I’d expect to be involved with online issues (SAPol [and AFP, and I think every law enforcement organisation in Australia]) have dedicated teams that deal with the complexities of online issues – for the very reason that it’s complicated to do legal stuff across international (even state, to be honest) borders. AFAIK, the only place in Australia where police forces have easy jurisdiction across state borders (and it would be infinitely times as hard internationally) is Canberra Policing (an arm of AFP) and NSW – who allow each other to chase bad guys from Canberra into Queanbeyan and Jerrabomberra (and possibly Bungendore ) – but I think most people in that part consider Queanbeyan an outer (very, very outer) suburb of Canberra that they love to hate….
Nick…It’s true that I haven’t posted on your site for years, but you’d be the best at figuring out when that last was. I stopped posting as a solution to the troll attacks, but it’s continued to roll on even in my absence. Your ‘fake xlamb’ seems to be ducking around a couple of sites where I’ve previously posted, repeating and rejigging the contents, and dumping it on your doorstep. It’s very flipping juvenile and bothersome behavior and I don’t know what purpose it serves, other than designed to annoy us both. It’s possibly the same ‘fake xlamb’ that posted on another site (on a different subject matter). On that site it has it appear I’ve named a convicted paedophile under current investigation… though his true identity is suppressed in the Adelaide newspaper article 20/5/15 where I’m named also; thus having someone post as ‘me’ might be emerging as a serious problem. Perhaps their intentions are more to poke fun, evoke some delightful responses (example bdid) rather than sinister, but tidying up the aftermath becomes rather tiresome. It’s neither interesting or fun for me.
Meanwhile I’d really appreciate your help in banning ‘fake xlamb’ to Holland permanently.
Anyway…It’s someone else that’s pulling your strings here Nick. You have my site address and I expect this can be compared.
Xlamb: thanks for leaving a comment (from the correct half of the world) because that meant I had your genuine IP address to compare with. I have taken the Dutch troll’s comments down from the site.
If you need to take action against this troll in future, please let me know and I’ll pass you his/her IP addresses.
My apologiy to xlamb. Nick, I shall try to stay out of moderators modes and methods — and keep my ‘teapot’ at a simmer . Question: Why 500-word blogs?
Or was it 5,000 words?
I shall try to stay on-track when replying.
beady-eyed wonderer 🙂
Thanks for your help Nick…I expect this troll will just change their name and try another angle if they’re wanting to be noticed via yours / or other sites. So silly when they could just be themselves and be included in any discussion group if they’re feeling lonely and wanting to chat. We can only hope the trolls are running out of material as their efforts to divide on-line groups are becoming rather tiresome…particularly for the genuine researcher members.
I’ve been named in the papers and a couple of books since, so I’m hardly anonymous any more, but still, it’s not nice to find yourself being stalked across the Internet and even more shocking when they come to your front door.
If you could save Holland xlamb address please, it could serve to stem any further problems while some other processes are underway. Thanks!
bdid1dr: you may also have noticed an edit I made to your comment (in square brackets). Not your best choice of words ever. 🙁
I stand corrected; and I shall do my best not to interfere with your conversations with your various long-time blog correspondents.
beady-eyed wonder
To trick by planting faulty seed which down an endless path shall lead
Can only cause contempt to breed amongst the others of thy creed
To take another’s word or deed and use the same to serve thy need
The evil consequence of greed is apt to fail cannot succeed
Thou who repenteth can be freed seek out thy brother beg and plead
Forgiveness shall be thine indeed peace be to thee indeed indeed
John S …What beautiful words!
Concerning my mention of “other processes underway”, and while all the chaos above was happening, we had some very good news in Adelaide.
At last we have an arrest…”Man charged with child sexual abuse offences dating from 1962 to 1983″ reported Advertiser / News 9/6/16.
This also featured on Adelaide Channel 7 News tonight, as a person of interest in connection to the missing Beaumont children.
It’s not worth risking years of hard work in a criminal investigation, for a pack of trolls… whatever their odd agendas might be.
Xlamb: Cipher Mysteries is a cipher history research site, not a Beaumont Children / historical sex offences forum. To my eyes, there’s no obvious shortage of other websites that would be more appropriate places for you to discuss this.
Now that you’re aware that there are real and important issues happening outside your world of cipher mysteries, I’d appreciate no longer being part of your discussions. You should now remove the above post and any other material where I’m referenced. As you’ve clearly stated, If it has nothing to do with cipher history research it shouldn’t be allowed on your site.
Xlamb: thanks for the advice on what I should do. I’m sure you have plenty of people giving you advice too.
We have cipher mysteries on Nick’s blogs. I, for one, am not interested in murder mysteries. (Yawn) . World history, however, is full of ‘mayhem’. I enjoy reading for solutions , as well as translations.
bd
Nick: Not too long ago I responded to your blog posts (two?) in re the mysterious death of Ricky McCormick. I translated his notes (where he was tallying the truckloads of nuclear waste (Mallinkrodt et al) which were being dumped into the Westlake / Bridgeton waste dumpsite(s).
In more recent years St. Louis city and suburban residents have been protesting and appealing to various government agencies (EPA, for one) for help in closing down the dumpsites — even though the Bridgeton fire is still burning and going deeper into the Westlake dumpsite. So far, the various agencies have not been able to find a solution. Also apparent is serious problems with St. Louis’ Airport (hundreds of barrels full of nuclear waste) from Mallinkrodt’s refining uranium for the Manhattan Project in Chicago Illinois.
History in a “nut shell” . Or just the meanderings of a ‘nut-case’ ?
beady-eyed as ever — and still 1-dring ………