Since I’m quite unhappy with the way the comment thread of my last post unfolded, I thought I’d briefly set some ground rules and ask for further advice. Here are a few things I did not like:
First and foremost: long, long, long comments about someone’s favorite alternative theory of the universe. I’ll adopt zero tolerance policy from now on. I will, reluctantly, accept links to the innovator’s own blog, but anything else will be deleted. One of the ideas of the blog (besides me having fun) is to serve an educational goal, and I will not have this space serve as a source for false information. Yeah, that’s right, censorship.
Similarly, if you write a comment or two which does not catch anyone’s attention, I’d recommend chilling for a little while. I’m tempted to start deleting or shortening long manifestos that lead nowhere. While we are at it, a side comment: my participation in a conversation, or lack thereof, has to do with many things, including my own time constraints. If you don’t get a reply to your question, it is not a reflection on your personality.
Also, other people’s comments, including other string theorists’ comments, do not necessarily reflect my views. They certainly do not always reflect my motivations and approach to the subject matter. I appreciate the help others provide, and I’m happy when they show up and explain their viewpoint in detail. But, in case the conversation develops, it is likely to diverge very quickly from the original intention of the blog post. In this case I’d much rather the conversation changes venue, so it doesn’t clutter the comment thread here.
In the end, despite all the noise, we had a few pleasant conversations, some of which did not yet reach their logical conclusion. For example, I think I still owe Giotis and Amused some answers to their excellent questions. Stay tuned, I’ll get to that.
Any advice or response is appreciated. I’d like this to be a pleasant experience for everyone involved. I have no respect at all for controversy, and I am not trying to generate it, I am still puzzled by the strong emotional response some of these fairly technical issues generate. Similarly, I do not view the comment threads as “debates”, but rather some space for people to share their knowledge and experience, and to learn from one another. Some ground rules do seem necessary to make that happen, let me know what you think.
So, when my friends and I started our math blog, we discussed the question of comment moderation and decided that our Official Policy was “we don’t have a moderation policy.” We certainly moderate, but we don’t apologize or explain when we do. We don’t guarantee any form of consistency.
Basically, our blog is supposed to have roughly the same conversational tone that you find at tea or while having a beer with your colleagues. These sorts of things are governed by social norms, and we thought it was probably counterproductive to attempt to codify these norms into a policy.
Two other relevant thoughts:
* I recommend treating crackpots and other People Who Refuse to Learn as trolls.
* You might find it useful to read Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s thoughts on comment moderation and commenting communities. If you don’t know her, she’s the person who Boing Boing hired to moderate their fora.
Thanks. I certainly agree with all you said. We had a grace period before encountering the usual pitfalls of internet communication, but now it seems we (or at least I) have to face them.
The purpose of this note was basically to alert readers the situation has changed somewhat, but also clarify my point of view and re-assure some of the readers, who thought I was dissatisfied with their contributions, that in fact I was not.
Hi Moshe:
We have a ‘policy’ in the about page, which I think captures some of what you want. The policy is that we have rights, without any reason to give excuses, of doing what we think is appropriate. The wording is particularly lax so that there is no `gaming’ of the rules and we have absolute discretion about it.
I believe that in a group of reasonable people, one does not need to apply the fine letter of this policy often. If things start spiraling out of control, we are not doing anything immoral by shorting the comments on some thread, or by being particularly aggressive in stopping what we think are deteriorating situations.
Cheer up! You have been doing a great job so far!
I tend to be chicken about posting on certain subjects because I am preemptively pessimistic about the outcome of the discussion (hence I’m self-censoring).
Thanks David. I also tend to be chicken about those topics, I thought I was avoiding the particularly contentious ones… In any event, I’m not taking any of this to heart, this is a lot of fun and I intend to keep it that way.
Also, the outcome of the discussion is pretty much invisible to us. I worked out once that we get about one comment for each 150 page views. Most readers absorb the information in silence. Since we don’t know, we can rely on our innate optimism in interpreting the situation.
One thing I discovered while writing physics articles on Wikipedia was that it is impossible to find a topic guaranteed to avoid controversy. You never expect having to deal with an, ahem, “fractured ceramic” who is vitally concerned about locally isotropic Waffenstoffer n-simplices — because they’re the key to his Theory of Everything which has been brutally suppressed by the scientific community, etc. — but it’ll happen. And once it does, tempers heat up and everybody’s day is basically ruined.
I find blogging a great deal more congenial than hacking away on Wikipedia, not least because at my place, I can stomp down on any discussion which has gone awry. I’m the sort of bleeding-heart idealist who gets all angsty every time they have to zap a comment or block a commenter, because there’s always that little voice in the head going, “It’s the thin edge of the censorship wedge.” Then I remember that I’m not the government, I’m not a common carrier, I’m just a guy with a website; people who come by and visit are standing on my front porch.
I’ve really enjoyed following the posts and discussions here, particularly those for which I lack the background knowledge necessary to contribute anything significant.
Moshe,
While I don’t comment very often, I do read the comment streams on interesting posts. I would much rather see a stream like this one with a dozen concise, cogent comments than to slog my way through a stream of 200 trying to find the 20 that are actually relevant or have something to say about the post topic.
To that end, I agree with the previous comments that this is your blog; you should have full control of its content without limits or guilt.
Hi Moshe,
You’re correct that most people, like me, read the posts and comments without having anything interesting to comment about, so they stay silent. I’m doing here pretty much as in physics seminars -more informally of course-, absorbing information and giving myself time to think.
There is also that time is in limited supplies for most of us, I guess.
But I find your posts very instructive, keep it up!
Btw, I agree that crackpot comments should be tracked down and shot.
Although at some level it’s also fun to see, but it’s annoying when you’re trying to discuss seriously.