Web 2.0 Code Debate Heats Up

Waxing as profoundly as a herd of Greek philosophers, the blogosphere is attempting to right itself in the aftermath of the Kathy Sierra incident. Everyone from Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales to the least commenter at Digg is having their say about conduct on the Web. The evident “shiver” running up the spines of some bloggers at the utterance of words like code and conduct is indicative of a kind of polarity that exists. Let's assume that there are obviously several entities at work in these discussions that naturally have vested interests of either a veiled or disclosed nature. These would be the publicity seekers (either variety), blogs or sites that benefit one way or another from inflammatory comment and an array Web people at some way-point in between truth and consequence.

Breaking it down

In order to simplify arguments like these (which is what we all want inherently), we have to grind all this discourse down to its smallest and most basic essence. Essentially, every decision we make as human beings can be broken down to either black or white, right or wrong. True, things can become gray and fuzzy along the way, but time and clarity of truth or thought will eventually quantify most things as either right or wrong. People can try to evade the inevitable, but clarity reveals the essence of things in all cases.

Clarity

Tim O'Reilly, who I do not always agree with, wrote on O'Reilly Radar, that the culture we are creating with our blogs should be one that we can be proud of. According to a story by Glen Chapman of AFP, O'Reilly was also quoted as saying: “A culture is a set of shared agreements that allows us to live together,” in a blog post calling for a code of conduct. Neither Wales nor O'Reilly is talking about some prospective legislative branch like the ”Bureau of Online Blogs” (that would be  BOOB!) legal arm of the blogosphere, but rather a cohesive effort to take this Web to a different level.

Jimmy Wales posted some guidelines on Blogging Wikia, which opened a discussion about this issue in a most sensible and correct fashion. Wales, who I do agree with most of the time, essentially opened up the discussion on a civil and intellectual level. I applaud Wales and O'Reilly for making an effort to do something! Just writing this article only expresses an opinion, but suggesting that people go to these sites and enter into this discussion prompts action. Most of the comments I have read call for doing nothing but maintaining the status quo.

Correct Action

This is really a simple issue, because if people want to tolerate inflammatory comments on their blogs, then they should do so by all means. Conversely, if blog owners do not want people to act like chimpanzees on their blogs, they should post a disclaimer and uphold it. Then people who love being flamed or threatened just go to your favorite “hog wallow” and have at it.

Whether you agree with Wales or O'Reilly or not, the truth of what they are suggesting is crystal clear. Is it bad to insult or injure other human beings? Should every fiber of Web communication or community tolerate “bad” conduct? A rough equivalent to this situation is mirrored when a person goes out for a friendly drink. If someone goes into a high class joint and starts cussing everyone out, they hit the streets in pretty quick order. Even on skid row trouble makers tend to get their just deserts, but with sometimes less gentile methods.

Come on blog world, O'Reilly and Wales are just presenting a rough draft for the overall “civilization” of the blogosphere. Our opinion about them is irrelevant, but the essence of inherent truth and wisdom in their effort is what should appeal to us. No, we should not swallow any procedure hook-line-and-sinker! We should have never waited until the Kathy Sierra incident came to light to adopt and enforce what is, or is not acceptable behavior. Some blogs have always upheld a basic code, while others really just respond to the prevailing winds. All I can say to the “numbers” people is: “Are a few numbers more valuable than decency and a quality community?”  

Go Medieval

In medieval times most of the little worms that pollute Web 2.0 would have been chopped into 52 pieces by now. I am not sure what the “modern” reactive equivalent of medieval societal harmony is, but words have transformed some into black knights in these situations. Someone once said: “The pen is mightier than the sword”, so I expect we need to discuss, agree and then post “the word”.