It's day two of the blogger Code of Conduct debate. My two cents? I shared them over at Anil's, but essentially I think it's a problem more with blogs having enough reach now that they've become mainstream. I will say this twice because it bears repeating: It's a problem with society, not blogs.
But this bit of bullshit from today's Chronicle is really just too much:
How in the world can you make a generalization like that? Did you survey each and every blog on the Interwebs? Talk to all the bloggers? Impressive; that must have been time-consuming. Horseshit.Although bloggers are usually benign, some engage in vitriolic attacks, protected by a cloak of online anonymity. The more provocative the comments, the more attention they get.
And what about that Hed? "Bloggers disinclined toward suggestion of Net civility." Was there some sort of vote that nobody told me about? Have I been disenfranchised?
Here's a fun thing to do: When you read an article about bloggers, swap out the word "blogger" with the word "people." If the result is a wide swath of humanity being painted with the same brush, it's a safe bet that the article is too general.
There are millions of fucking bloggers. Some are nice. Some are rude. Some are from Philadelphia.
And as many bloggers are there are, there are even more commenters, who are, by and large, what's being discussed.
It's easy to be a big man behind a keyboard, or in the comfort of your car, over the phone, via email, or in a variety of other situations where you can be reasonably assured you won't get punched in the nose. The bad behavior is a symptom of society, not blogs.
