‘Lack of civility’ on comment thread sees The Conversation lay down guidelines
Academic journalism website The Conversation has launched a set of community standards to raise the level of discussion in its comment thread.
Cory Zanoni has been hired by the not-for-profit website to moderate reader’s comments and develop the guidelines, which were published today.
“We want The Conversation to be a place for intelligent discussion and we think there’s more we can do to achieve that,” Zanoni said in an email to readers announcing his appointment.
In today’s newsletter he said his hire came after readers and editors raised concerns there was a “lack of civility” in many of the comment threads, and he would closely moderate comments as well as develop the guidelines with user feedback.
As always this says it all:
https://xkcd.com/386/
Anatomy of a comment thread:
1) This is total [insert swear word].
2) This is the fault of [insert name of Prime Minister]
3) [Prime Minister] is a [[insert swear word].
4) Etc
“Commenters are required to provide their real names on the website.”
I know it’s been discussed on these pages before, but I think use of real names would improve the atmosphere and, potentially, the quality of debate hereabouts. Yes, people may not feel they can pitch in on debate if they are close to the issue, or they fear that they may one day find themselves excluded from working with or for someone because of an injudicious or overly frank comment. But I am sure communications people could think of other ways of letting mumbrella and its readers know what they think. And I am looking forward to more judiciously moderated comment threads at The Conversation.
Well written guidelines, good work Cory. (Although I’m surprised there weren’t guidelines in place as they’re fundamental to creating the ‘right’ online environment.)
I have to disagree that real names with improve the quality of debate, or the atmosphere.. a topic I’ve written about on Mumbrella before. Reputation systems and effective community management both contribute to people building robust pseudonyms, which are oft regarded with relative importance to people’s IRL reputations!
The Conversation is full of debate by stakeholders and those ‘close to issues’, so they’ll be doing the community a disservice by excluding people who can’t comment under their real name.
These guidelines suck!
So, we are supportive of censorship at the conversation are we?
Just because someone doesn’t express themselves in the style we determine to be civil, their opinions are not valid and wont be heard… Are the LNP writing the guidelines?