A call for papers!
Don't you just lo-o-o-ve academic jargon?
Really, though. Some experiences I recently had in the blogosphere have led me to make a suggestion.
Neo-Confederate sympathizer Al Barger, innocently, he says, claims insurers should charge homosexuals different premiums than heterosexuals because they have very short life expectancies in an entry at Blogcritics. Barger, unusually for him, did cite a source. Unfortunately, the source, Right Wing commentator Walter Williams, relied on 'research' by zealots from the Christian Right, one of whom has been ejected from the American Psychological Association for making up data to support his antipathy toward gays.
Yesterday, Doug Mohney, a reporter for the Inquirer, angered some Blogcritics by briefly alluding to blogs as 'losers.'
Blogging, in combination with dead half-finished web pages, has the potential to give Google and anyone trying to find information on the increasingly cluttered web high-blood pressure. Advocates say it's a democratic way to counter the mass media so anyone can post a screed against The Man. Not that anyone would want to consider the old-fashioned values of editing and reworking text before posting. And maybe I don't care what albums or books you are reading.
The most common response was to castigate the reporter for daring to criticize a sacred cow hereabouts, weblogs.
John Mudd was not pleased.
Both bloggers and non-bloggers can plainly see that Doug's outlash against bloggers is only a cheap way for him to keep his job, to maintain his value to his publisher.
The Inquirer is wasting their money. They should let Doug go today and hire a blogger who will do work of equal-value and expertise for less money, or perhaps even for free.
Neither was Anita Campbell.
Chris Seper, in his Chat Room LIVE weblog , points out an article in the Inquirer naming bloggers as losers in a listing of the year's technology winners and losers.
The Inquirer article is so far out of touch with the majority of the population, the only possible response is amusement.
I mean, you can't give much credibility to an article so filled with tech jargon that it is virtually unintelligible.
And yet the author complains about blogs?
However, an examination of data about weblogs mostly supports what he said: They are mainly web clutter. Does that mean your blog is just clogging up Google? Probably not, especially if you are on the blogroll at Mac-a-ro-nies, but most of the five million or so are. Their proprietors usually abandon them sometime between one day and four months. Even while publishing blogs are too often sources of disinformation and misinformation.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Zudfunck
Here, Here! Excellent ideas! From my limited time watching this Circus of Blogs, your points make a lot of sense, Mac Diva.
The proof is in the pudding, and if there is an Odor, it is coming from somewhere. Hoepfully it isn't me! Plus I love the way you give it to Al! Good theatre.
2 - duane
That's "Hear, hear!" not "Here, Here!" After responsible posting, as suggested by Mac Diva, the next important thing is to display at least a modicum of literacy in your writing. I, for one, if you care, won't take you seriously if you don't write well. No doubt, there are others who will agree, and some who won't. Sure, it's possible to write with the flair of de Lillo and still spew BS. But poor writing usually indicates a lack of reading, and that impression tends to undermine your veracity. So, shape up!
Damn! There goes my New Year's resolution to be less critical of others.
3 - Madison
I actually started to write a blogging code of conduct that deals with this problem. If a blog lived by the code of conduct they would display a small graphic on their site like Creative Commons has.
4 - bhw
If a blog lived by the code of conduct they would display a small graphic on their site like Creative Commons has.
Isn't that what the "fair and balanced" meme was about? ;-)
[Whoops, duane might tag me for ending a sentence with a preposition!]
MD, you raise a few excellent points. I've noticed that the blogosphere leans toward the reactionary: someone [mis]reads something, gets peeved, writes a brief rant [and possibly calls for a boycott or google strike], and then gets trackbacked/linked out the wazoo. Before you know it, *lots* of bloggers are *all* fired up about something that they really know absolutely nothing about.
Those kinds of reactions give blogging a bad name, I think.
As we tease my father-in-law, the blogosphere [a word I kind of hate, btw] seems to think that "if it's a fact, it must be true".
The joke is that nobody is checking the so-called facts.
5 - Mac Diva
bhw, having been on the receiving end of one of those group wig outs months ago, I know what you mean. To this day, most of the people who joined in haven't a clue about why they were spouting nonsense, except someone told them to. And, the people who are most likely to join in that sort of thing are usually the worst bloggers. In fact, it may be compensation: Yell and beat your chest a lot and maybe other bloggers won't notice you can't think or write well.
I don't know that it is possible to have an official code of conduct, but just considering what makes a worthy source is a beginning. For example, Walter Williams bills himself as an economist. Yet, his writings don't appear in economics journals or even op-ed pieces about economic policy. They are solely the province of extreme Right sites, including neo-Confederate forums. In fact, his main function for the last few years, has been being the fly in the buttermilk at neo-Confederate gatherings. (Williams and H.K. Edgerton, the black fellow they have marching around with a big Confederate flag, are competitors for chief handkerchief head.) Information like that, which can be gleaned from the Web, should make any reasonable person a little skeptical about the man. I am not saying outre sources should never be cited, but an explanation or a disclaimer should be included if they are. For example, if I were to cite a first-person account of a riot from IndyMedia, I would make sure that I said this was one, non-pro's viewpoint. That is just basic. I hope most bloggers see why.
6 - Mark Saleski
everything that i write has been thoroughly researched in my blog test kitchen.
...except for when i just make stuff up.
7 - duane
"Whoops, duane might tag me for ending a sentence with a preposition!"
Nah, bhw, like, you write real good and stuff.
8 - bhw
Eggggggshellent.....
9 - jadester
i don't think all bloggers should have to write from a neutral perspective. That's nigh-on impossible in alot of situations anyway.
Although i agree about your main point. If they are not being neutral they should make it clear, without requiring you to actually read their articles, what political, etc. leanings they have. I haven't really thought how (and here some kind of guidelines or something that bloggers can follow if they wish would be very good)
What would be needed would be to gather a load of bloggers from all over the 'net, from all political spectrusm, who feel the same. Then come up with ideas for guidelines. No political BS, no personal attacks, just ideas for guidelines. Draw 'em up, put 'em on the web and invite any blogger who wants to use them.
10 - bhw
I'm not sure MD is suggesting neutrality on the part of bloggers as much as honesty about the neutrality [or not] and/or leanings of the sources bloggers site.
11 - bhw
...make that "cite" not "site".
Where's my coffee?
12 - John Mudd
Perhaps some of us here at Blogcritics should get together and write an official open-source "Bloggers Code of Conduct" or even a "Bloggers Code of Ethics". Perhaps we could get The Inquirer to sponsor it.
DMOZ was started in order to make search engines more efficient and less cluttered, and it was working very well until blogs became a hit and Google became #1.
I think some sort of guidelines would improve the quality of blogs and once made mainstream, could improve the credibility of bloggers and improve the quality of blogs, as well.
E-mail me if you're interested and we can all work out the details together.
As for Doug's column, what I really didn't like about it is the fact that he lumped all bloggers in with diary-bloggers and with bloggers who create their blog, then leave it their, lifeless for Google to scan, thus cluttering it.
My blog has always been a source of information for the media, for clients and for prospective clients. When I am interviewed by the media or on a show of some sort, they typically introduce me as "Realtor and blogger" (and "blog expert" in some cases), so I don't think all blogs or bloggers fall into the category that Doug placed them in.
I understand the point about clutter, but that's more Google's fault than bloggers' (Google has kept links to old blogs of mine that do not exist anymore, even when I requested that they remove the old, dead links). Also, there's plenty of clutter in Google, and it's not just blogs (do a name search on me and you'll see plenty of clutter that's non-blog related, and you'll also see older blogs that have been deleted from Blogger that were mine a long time ago. Google hasn't removed them, even though I requested it.).
I think Google's goal is to be the ultimate search resource, and since that's the case, it's going to be an abundant source of information, clutter and non-clutter, alike. However, if you're a good researcher, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. The clutter isn't always fun, but it's never stopped me from finding something I'm looking for.
Cheers.
13 - John Mudd
One person has signed up to be a part of the fabulous team of bloggers who will design the Bloggers Code of Conduct or Bloggers Code of Ethics, whichever the group decides to call it.
Who will be next to join us? Will you help shape the blogosphere for the better by contributing to this wonderful work?
E-mail me to join us in creating this wonderful work.
When the work is complete, we can rate blogs as to whether or not they're following the Code and even give them a button to place on their blog saying they've been approved by the Bloggers Code of Conduct/Ethics Board.
It would be great to have a great team of bloggers to help hammer out all the details and get this started. Will you join us today? Please do, and e-mail me if you're interested.
Cheers.
14 - Chris
Why don't we just get rid of the ETC. column here? Keep at least this site focused on music, movies, books and other forms of entertainment.
15 - Tom Johnson
I'm amazed people are actually spending time and energy getting worked up over what blogs should and should not be. Like books, if you don't like a particular style or genre, just don't read them. A "bloggers code of conduct" will succeed only in making bloggers, at least those that adopt this code, look like a bunch of pansy-ass snobs. Or, I should say, even moreso than we already look now. The bloggers code of conduct only confirms that we're a bunch of people with too much time on our hands, big egos, and far too many words rumbling around in our heads.
16 - Mark Saleski
it also gives more weight to the anti-blog arguments that blogs need editors, don't contain 'real' writing, etc.
some blogs are crap, some are not. oh well.
17 - Eric Olsen
Blogs are good, bad and ugly: anyone who has spent any time with them at all knows this. This applies to individual blogs as entities and within blogs as well. I know my posts aren't of uniform quality - whose are?
MD's critiques of blogs are just as valid as any other kind of media criticism and, I hope, raise the overall quality of blog writing.
But this also raises an fairly obvious point: MD and many others conistently put down the value of InstaPundit and other primarily link-oriented sites, but it is exactly the vastly uneven, and simply vast, nature of blogs that make intelligent, reliable tour guides, filters, of the blog world so valuable and popular.
18 - Mac Diva
Chris, I think what you mean is 'why not get rid of Mac Diva?' so I will respond to your question. During the last month, most of my posts have been about politics and blogging. However, my forte at Blogcritics started out as reviews -- mainly books, but also music, tech and even a coffee brewer. I have a huge backload of books I need to write reviews of, including The Autograph Man, which I promised people who don't hate uppity women of color I would do. So, getting rid of Etc. would not get rid of Mac Diva. Sorry. Your encouragement of a 'Bash the Diva' thread yesterday didn't work either. Back to the drawing board I guess.
19 - Mac Diva
John, I will look at the Code of Conduct and consider whether to sign it later today. I hope it is simple. That is because the more that is made part of the Code, the less likely people are to adhere to it. That is why I suggested something as basic as citing reliable sources, and saying when their sources have an agenda, as a place bloggers can start to improve.
20 - Eric Olsen
The Et Cetera has been controversial from its inception, but is far too entrenched to remove now even if we wanted to. I am sympathetic with the concept of an "entertainment only" site as a refuge against political contention, but due to space restrictions, Et Cetera not only includes politics, but electronics, the Internet, media (apart from TV and film), video games, and whatever random goodies that don't fit elsewhere.
In addition, over time it has become clear that politics cannot be separated from entertainment anyway, so why not make it explicit and call it what it is? And selfishly, since Blogcritics is my home site and I want to be able to talk about politics and current events, it wouldn't be very sporting for me to tell everyone else that they can't do what I wish to do myself. So there you have it: controversial, contentious but vital.
21 - Jim Carruthers
YES!!!! It's true!
Research proves research works!
Thank you St. Orobourus!
Please read how Bob Dobbs changed my neighbor's life on my blog, and his secret shameful affair with Mac Diva.
(and my spelling checker has recommended using "bog" instead of "blog").
22 - Mac Diva
I also think Etc. is a favorite of the more active Blogcritics. We're not paid for doing this, so I think pleasing us in some way is a good idea.
I can see reconfiguring the categories for Etc. For example blogs are part of the Internet, but perhaps blogging should have its own category. And health. And, perhaps, sex. Well . . . maybe not sex.
23 - Eric Olsen
The problem is space: we are limited width-wise to four columns on the main page. That's why TV, theatrical films and video are together, and why everything else that isn't music or books is under Et Cetera.
24 - Mac Diva
(Wiping away a tear.) So sex can't have its own category anyway.
25 - Chris
Doesn't it get tiring to view every comment through a prism of "me"?
Like Eric said, the Etc. column generated controversy from the get-go, long before MD's arrival.
I just threw it out there as a suggestion.