‘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.
The community standards published today include:
- Don’t attack people and don’t respond to attacks
- Keep your posts on topic and constructive
- Take responsibility for the quality of the conversations you take part in
- Above all, respect others and their opinions
Comments deemed unconstructive will be deleted from the site, such as posts saying “this article sucks” rather than “I disagree with this article because…”
“Back up your ideas with evidence and fact where possible,” the website states. “Ask any questions you have for the author or your fellow commenters. Aim to add a new idea to each approach rather than repeating what’s already been said. Move on if things get stuck. We’ll distinguish between constructive comments and smear campaigns.”
Commenters are required to provide their real names on the website.
Zanoni asked readers to contact him as the standards are iteritive and will be developed with their feedback.
As always this says it all:
https://xkcd.com/386/
User ID not verified.
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
User ID not verified.
“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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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?
User ID not verified.