Had so much fun at our #smwdc #smwengage panel: instagr.am/p/G9uDPjJyHh/ Thanks to @phoebedoris @AlexHortonVA @mjenkins @NishaChittal @digiphile
— merici (@merici) February 14, 2012
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsLast month, I wrote a popular post on the value of blog comments. My take: Whether you choose to have comments or not speaks to whether you want to create an online community, which requires a human’s touch to manage and moderate, or to simply publish your thoughts publicly online, without making the necessary commitment of time and patience.
As is often the case, I agree with Mathew Ingram: blog comments are worth the effort. Last week, I had the opportunity to expand upon what I meant in a public forum here in the District of Columbia during Social Media Week.
Creating and managing high quality online conversations isn’t easy but I strongly believe that it’s worth it. Following is a storify of the online conversation that emerged on the Twitter “backchannel” during the panel discussion and some rules of the road that explain how I’m approaching moderation on Facebook and Google+, where I now have over 50,000 circlers/subscribers combined.http://storify.com/digiphile/a-story-of-online-community-comments-and-moderatio.js
[View the story “A story of online community, comments and moderation” on Storify]
On moderating Facebook and Google+ public pages
Over the past year, I’ve seen a lot of spam and pornography links pop up on the blogs I moderate, on Facebook and on the Google+. Fortunately, Google and Facebook both give us the ability to moderate comments and, if we wish, to block other people who do not respect the opinions or character of others. Last month, I saw a lack of clarity about my approach to online community, so here’s how I think about it, with a nod to Dan Gillmor’s example:
I can and do block spammers and people posting links to pornography.
I generally leave comments on my blogs, precisely because I value conversations, despite the issues that persist online. I have been moderating discussion in online forums and blogs for many years, including those of my publishers.
Insulting me, slandering my employer or my professional work won’t help your case. Insulting others will ruin it. I was a teacher in my twenties. I would not tolerate disrespectful behavior in my classroom, either to me or to other students. If you can’t be civil and continue to insult others, much less the person hosting the forum, you were asked to leave and see the principal.
If the behavior persists, you will lose the privilege of participating in the class at all. Eventually, you get expelled. On Google+ or blogs, that takes the form of being defriended, banned or blocked from my public updates. I prefer not to block users but I will do so. I respect your right to speak freely on your own blog, Twitter, Facebook or Google+ account, whether that involves cursing or ignorance.
I strongly believe in the First Amendment, with respect to government not censoring citizens. That said, I do not feel obligated to host such speech on my own blog, particularly if it is directed towards other commenters. I believe that building and maintaining healthy communities, online of offline, requires that the people hosting them enforce standards for participation that encourage civil dialogue.
I hope that makes sense to folks here. If not, you are welcome to let me know in the comments.
Great Article. I especially liked the storified feature. and the “Substitute teaching analogy to online community building” since I am a Substitute Teacher and working on more Online Community Building.
I totally agree, Alexander! I’ve run a bunch of different interactive online spaces for the NCDD network over the years, and I’ve found that the more successful you are at getting people posting, the more ground rules you should set and enforce to keep the space civil and on-topic. For most of our online spaces, we just try to encourage comments, period — and prevent spam from ever getting posted. But when you’re able to get things going, ground rules provide the moderator with something “real” to share with people who aren’t acting appropriately, so they don’t think you have a bone to pick with them.
In case you’re interested, the ground rules for NCDD’s very active member listserv are posted at http://ncdd.org/rc/item/2624. We developed those rules over the years collaboratively with subscribers, and they make moderation a lot easier (especially when a problem does arise).
Online moderation is always tricky, though… It’s often the less civil comments that get the most responses, and can really get a conversation going (that’s even the case in the very civil “dialogue and deliberation community” that I’m part of. (We also get a lot of quality discussion going when people ask sincerely for advice, of course.) But as moderator it’s tricky to know where the line is between “inappropriate” and “prickly enough to get people going.” Do you find that challenging as well?