On the comments policy issue, I am not a fan of the Berners-Lee proposal. I am sure those people have good intentions but I dislike the way they’re going about it – the post Kim linked to implies that allowing anonymous commenting is trivial and I think the proposal implies that too. (Plus, the sheriff’s badge thing is utterly naff.)

The sheriff’s badge – yeah, very lame!

I’m not necessarily endorsing any of the links, or the proposed codes, just suggesting that it’s an issue worth discussing.

Agree about the stoopid “why don’t you post under your real name like us famous journos” shtick on the Sars thread – and generally it’s a very weak rhetorical device. And also, as you say, does have the potential to be a tool of cyberbullying given that many people blog pseudonymously for good reason. Implicit is the threat to “expose”. We’ve seen actual “gotcha” exposures a number of times in the blogosphere, and it’s sucked.

I’m very wary of demands for ‘real’ names. Most of the time such demands are, at best, a thinly disguised expression of credentialism, a completely different bag of cats to accountability, and a game that we shouldn’t get drawn into, particularly with people who feel their turf is being threatened in some way.

The darker side of the request for real names is that it is often part of a form of cyberbullying: ‘we know who you are and where to find you’.

On the comments policy issue, I am not a fan of the Berners-Lee proposal. I am sure those people have good intentions but I dislike the way they’re going about it – the post Kim linked to implies that allowing anonymous commenting is trivial and I think the proposal implies that too. (Plus, the sheriff’s badge thing is utterly naff.)

To me, it smacks of an attempt to be seen to be doing something about trolling and cyberbullying or stalking, in a way that media types can quickly grasp and understand, without really addressing the deeper problems (and they *are* deep.) For one thing, as lots of people have pointed out, there are plenty of blogs with effective and thought-out comments policies. My impression is that random drop-in visitors of the ‘aren’t blogs shocking’ variety don’t spend the thirty or so seconds looking around a site necessary to find and read comments policies before launching into their moral indignation schticks. Otherwise they would not claim, wrongly, that blogs are free-for-alls.

For another, widespread adopting of comments policies and codes of conduct won’t have any effect on what happens at sites that are set up expressly to be bitchfests, eg that meankids.org place, or our very own TSSH (which is shutting down, apparently.) Or, if there is an effect it could very well be to goad those kinds of sites onto bigger and bigger feats of dickheadedness.

Yeah, come on, Zarqy, pick up the phone and talk luvvie to me. It gets lonely in this garret.

Your points are all fair enough. It is your site. It’s a fine one and the guidelines as they are function very well compared to most. And it takes quite a bit to get yourself booted from here, I must say. (If I ran the place I’d have banned myself years ago, frankly.)

I do suggest that the ‘anonymity’ question is not going to go away any time soon, though. As the MSM masters the mere technical aspects that have to date differentiated this medium from its predecessors I expect amateur bloggers with something worthwhile to write read will have to up their authorial ante to keep both credibility and hit count apace with that of the pros. Speaking mere anonymous truth-to-power is like so last millennium man, etc. When Blairelzebub has the stones to publish photos banned by Islamic fatwahists without availing himself of what was surely a splendidly ‘valid’ reason to hide, and Tony Lowenstein likewise has the guts to take on their almost equally scary Jewish counterparts without a mask…I think the anonymous blogger anxious about his job or his wife’s disapproval risks appearing a teensy bit wimpy dilettantish anachronistic. A perceived lack of authorial accountability is a major reason why many pros bound by MSM standards tend to dismiss non-MSM blogging. The recent stoush at Sarasparilla on TV reviewing provided a variety of articulations of this attitude, a few of which were merely abusive, but others which were not without a lot of merit.

You sometimes need a thick skin, and if you’re active you’ll probably get your feelings hurt occasionally – but very often there’s apologies after the heat has passed, which is great, I think.

Or have I missed a lot somewhere?

Typical strawman argument Jacques.

Do points get deducted for that? Someone ask the chair!

There’s a prominent lawyer who is in severe need of having his ideas – not his person or his reputation – challenged.

He uses “registeration” …. not to protect his site against libel, abuse, sedition, treason and all other forms of criminality …. but apparently just to protect his own petty vanity.

Those who use – out of necessity – a public-access email address and a community-access computer are excluded for writing to this Great Man. He makes sure that he does not hear from pensioners, the unemployed and the struggling citizenry. He gives no alternative way to contact him and establish a bona-fide registration.

He is, of course, entitled to do whatever he does with his site …… but what a whacker!!!!