It’s about time bloggers set a code of conduct, not only for writing, but also for tolerating what sort of comments they will tolerate on their blogs. Arecent New York Times’ article notes:

A few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse. Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate. Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.

Having been at the receiving end of nasty comments myself, I think it’s is a good start to cleaning up the blogosphere. It’s not about restricting freedom of speech. It’s about making the blogosphere safer for people who want to express themselves freely without being subjected to cyber-bullying and hate attacks. Besides I believe that my blog is my home online. And it’s up to me to decide who I want to allow on my turf.

My personal policy for blogging and commenting is just that it should follow the rules of common human decency. I don’t mind the comments, just the sentiment behind them. I don’t write anything on my blogs that I would not say to someone in real life. Nor would I tolerate comments that I would not tolerate in actual conversation. And that is what blogs are - a conversation.

I do, however, make an exception for critical comments posted with good intention, and reply to these with like intention. Honest criticism is always welcome, because it’s what makes blogs so valuable as a medium for marketers to communicate with their audiences.

It’s the comments posted solely for the purpose of being nasty, that I delete, and advise you to delete them too. Not because I give a damn for what the “trolls” think, but because I simply choose not to allow negativity into my life. As the Blogger’s Code Of Conduct states,

We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them — “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. (George Bernard Shaw)” Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.

The Blogger’s Code Of Conduct guidelines, that were based onTim O’Reilly’s post, are excellent and I agree with them, to a large extent.

1. We take responsibility for our own words and reserve the right to restrict comments on our blog that do not conform to basic civility standards.

2. We won’t say anything online that we wouldn’t say in person.

3. If tensions escalate, we will 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.

7. We encourage blog hosts to enforce more vigorously their terms of service.

Another issue raised by the NYT article was that of vandalism and misuse of photos posted by well-read bloggers like Heather Armstrong. As a mother, I have (what I believe are) valid concerns for my family’s privacy. Because of the likelihood of photographs being copied and vandalised, morphed or misused, I avoid posting any that identify any member of my family clearly, and rarely share anything that’s very personal (except my opinions, and some travel photos) on my blogs. Email is, and will always be, my preferred medium for sharing personal photos. But that’s me.

I think it’s the well-read and/or controversial bloggers who are more likely to be targeted by vandals and cyber-bullies (Ah, the price of fame and book deals!). So the ordinary blogger, like you and me, will, hopefully, not have to worry about being targets, except for the occasional troll who wanders along.

The NYT article also mentions attempts to get bloggers to adhere more strictly to a journalistic code of conduct, which I believe, will go a long way in making blogs a more credible source of information and eliminate the objections that some critics have to the “dark side of blogs.”

Talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.

I think anonymous blogging might be valid in countries where political freedom is suppressed, or where certain views might be considered to go against religious sentiment. Bloggers weild wield a great deal of power in the wired world, and increasingly, in the mainstream media. It would be wise for the blogging community to remember that “with great power, comes great responsibility” and weild wield their pens with humility and respect for others.

Now will someone please come up with a solution to zap those spam comment posters?!!