|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 5 users and 63 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 1:13pm.
Over the last year at least I've been contacted by many members of the Olympia community about OlyBlog. Some of them were current members of the blog and expressed that they don't like the atmosphere, that it is stifling to real community building. Some of them were former members of OlyBlog who walked away from active roles for the same reason: they were afraid to post their opinions for fear of some of the responses they would receive. Most of them were lurkers who never post a thing. Most of those lurkers expressed that they wanted to post things and wanted share their opinions with and hear the opinions of their neighbors, but they won't until they can be sure they won't be attacked for it. This has been expressed to me by a variety of people on the spectrum from downtown business owners to state workers to local politicians.
» I immediately wanted to solve this problem, so I asked of them (sometimes they offered without my asking): What is something we could do about that? What can we change that would make you feel safe contributing to OlyBlog? Hands down the number one answer has been: Anonymity. I got to thinking about this, and I recalled the conversations we've had in the past, and I think it's time for us to seriously weigh the pros and cons of anonymity. A quick google search I did before setting out to write this pointed me to arguments on both sides. They were all compelling indeed, but the results that small local blogs have gotten from requiring people to identify themselves in order to post, seems, in my mind right now, to outweigh the arguments against it. It's a big decision to be made, I know. I also know that people would leave who have been great contributors to the OlyBlog community. It wouldn't be an easy decision, but I feel the kind of voices we would start getting here would quickly make us a reliable and competitive source for news and opinion, where right now, in many circles around town, we're not thought of as something to be taken seriously. It seems currently we're just a step above the Olympian's comments in the eyes of many. So let's talk about it. What say you all?
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 Blog Skool 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
My name is Jeff Melnix.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 2:07pm.Hope folks feel safer now that they know who I really am.
As one who uses a pseudonym I clearly have a horse in this race. But other than people's impressions, is there any evidence that posters are using their anonymity to make Olyblog an unsafe environment? If having been banned is a proxy for bad behavior, the last three people banned from Olyblog were not anonymous. They didn't post under their full names, but it's not hard to find out who they are. I just don't buy it. Anonymity is a problem when people are allowed to post under a different name everyday (or as "Anonymous"). Not here.
Added: I think what matters more is how people are greeted when they post here the first time. Here's what they say on Wikipedia. Now let's talk about that.
Pleased to meet you Jeff :)
Submitted by Sarah on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 3:04pm.In conversation (such as "Oh then G-man wrote a really cool thing") I tend to refer to you as "G-man", that nickname came about early on,
Good point that people banned were not using anonymity to hide behind.
Welcoming committee
Submitted by Sarah on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 3:21pm.Are you saying we should all be anonymous?
Submitted by jlw on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 2:04pm.Safety
Submitted by Sarah on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 3:00pm.Some of us have to be anonymous, at least partially if not fully.
More precisely - we have to have an anonymous type user name here. Yet we can still be civil and act responsibly.
I don't know that using anon names or not will make a difference as to how folks behave. How can we get people who bully and insult to stop? I don't really know. Other than role modeling civil behavior and setting boundaries. And pointing folks to the social contract.
Great topic of conversation Rob, thank you.
Thanks for the reminder
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 4:32pm.Although I would hate to have a stalker, I can't imagine how I would feel if I were female and had something of the sort.
I'm pro names
Submitted by Logarithm on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 2:31pm.Icky
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 3:04pm.Most of you know that I'm kinda anonymous....but a good number of you have met me in person and know me well enough that being anonymous is pointless.
Rob, I'd be interested in the pages you read, or possibly even a synopsis of the pro's and con's that you picked up. It doesn't seem to me like there would be a right answer that would cover everything/everyone.
OK
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 3:14pm.Thanks for posting this
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 4:28pm.You are still anonymous to the population at large
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 3:20pm.which may or may not be valuable to you depending on your motivations. Most people here know me too, but that's different than allowing anyone on earth to Google me and find me here. Sarah and jlw also bring up another good reason to protect one's identity. How I treat someone here is far more important than whether or not he or she knows who I am...at least when it comes to establishing a welcoming environment at Olyblog.
Anyway, how would Olyblog verify my identity when I register?
I hadn't thought of it in that context
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 4:28pm.Come on Norm. You can't mention your internet photos
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 4:36pm.One thing,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 3:22pm.I really feel that at this point, if we ever want OlyBlog to be what we've always talked about, we must solve this problem. People are looking for a place, and we are in prime position to offer them that place, but they won't come until we solve this problem.
Now that you've openned it up to more then anonymity...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 4:18pm.Protecting people from a few assholes is a worthwhile enterprize, but perhaps there is more we can do to encourage and retain new users. Immagine if we put half as much energy into that as we now do scolding and moderating our misbehaving brothers and sisters. "Hey, I see you just registered on Olyblog. Great to have you. Don't be afraid to jump in and PM me if you have any questions." Sarah suggested starting a new "Welcome wagon" thread. I think it fits with this discussion for now, but we should.
We might also consider some case studies. What potentially valuable members have dissapeared and why? Perhaps we can come up with a list and discuss it at our next face-to-face.
a "duh" moment
Submitted by enpen on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 10:38pm.Imagine if we put half as much energy into that as we now do scolding and moderating our misbehaving brothers and sisters. "Hey, I see you just registered on Olyblog. Great to have you. Don't be afraid to jump in and PM me if you have any questions."
Yup. That's what we should be doing. I feel like a moron.
"In principle, I am an anarchist. Kurt Vonnegut once said he was an agnostic who respects Jesus Christ. I am an anarchist who loves democracy." - Kenzaburo Oe
yep
Submitted by chad360 on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 5:04am.I agree-
-I think this is (in part) why so many "new" folks feel diss'd...
...not everyone is gonna say stuff docents and owners like, so a clear demarcation between postings from say Bert versus RW the docent (as an example) would be great.
I think alot of folks do like the rules when they are used even-handedly and alot of folks just step-away when stuff seems to be out-fo-bounds (like all the back-forth about hyperlocal).
Anonymous
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 3:26pm.If everyone would just name themselves "Anonymously Larry" or "Anonymously Wilford"...
I guess I really don't understand the "attack" thing. I thought blogs were for discussion.
My real name is not
Submitted by stevenl on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 4:38am.My real name is not difficult to find on OlyBlog. I've had one person track me down through the blog and call me at work. Fortunately, it was in regard to something positive about an Olympia history post. But I can imagine cases where posts regarding topics like the Nazis, Plan B, gun control, port protest, caimans, i.e., anything that gets folks all riled up, wouldn't necessarily invite a positive response. It isn't a left wing/right wing thing. It's a being civil/being an asshole thing.
If I had to use my real name, that wouldn't be a problem for me. But I know for a fact it would be for several of my fellow old-timers. I would really be sad to see people like TFI and Sarah go away.
super un-anonymous
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 7:22am.You can probably even find out where I live pretty easily, and that's the only way I'd have it.
I would probably avoid the "someone is going to track me down" fears by just not engaging in threads where people could get mad enought at me to try to track me down.
I'm pretty selective about where I put down words, but that's not to say I feel limited, I just have laid down some ground rules for myself.
1. Don't get wrapped around the axle. Don't try to convince someone in more than two posts.
2. Be brief.
3. Its ok not to respond.
That may work for you...
Submitted by jlw on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 1:29pm....but not for me. "Pro-life" fanatics (and I don't mean everyone who's pro-life, by any means, just the nutjobs) will persecute pro-choice people who speak out, regardless of how civil they are. I've gotten anonymous hate mail, harassing phone calls, vandalism to my car, and unwanted subscriptions to magazines, and one book club. Considering that I am a woman who lives alone with a child, being targeted like this is unnerving.
P.S. Although I currently live alone with a child, on any given night, my boyfriend and his large dog (part German Shepherd, part wolf) may be here, so any fanatics reading this, be warned. He's got big teeth.
Precisely, jlw
Submitted by stevenl on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 7:05pm.There are some OlyBlog posters who have angered groups that are notorious for harassing their opponents, e.g. those worshippers of old Stinky McFartomatic himself, the Nazis. If you don't believe me, then cruise their websites, then take a shower after you're done. These people are terrorists. For once I'm cheering for the FBI. Go get 'em, Feds!
Other people don't want to reveal their real names for occupational reasons. And still others for surname connections. A lot of people are just plain shy and an anonymous identity helps them speak up. And I don't blame them.
True, some anonymous folks are shills. Like I am for Marmite. Those of us who represent corporate interests should expect to be cross-examined if, in the course of discussion, our dialogue starts to sound like a marketing pitch or Borg corporate body rationalization. We are all in this for different motives.
Anonymous or known, the rules of civility should be equally applied. I think of all the folks who have been cut off from discussion here, or those who stormed away in a huff, the result is pretty much 50/50 in terms of whether or not we knew their real names. In the end, being anonymous isn't really that big of a factor. I say keep the option to stay hidden. OlyBlog would lose more than it would gain by requiring our real identities.
Perhaps an idea to think about is giving all OlyBloggers an opportunity, maybe through a two-week opening of the window, to change their name identities. Shake up the Etch-a-Sketch. Maybe several posters would redefine themselves and open up a bit more.
Love, stevenl
Marmite should be shilled
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 11:26am.My brother returned from
Submitted by stevenl on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 12:12pm.They make it in large jars?
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 12:27pm.I have been called a shill
Submitted by Burr on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 10:17am.I have been accused of being an anonymous shill of Triway Enterprises because I strongly support building on the isthmus.
I have chosen to handle this problem by stating facts that are cited, and by expressing opinions that are qualified. In so doing, I hope that my bias is obvious, and thus, my identity, irrelevant.
I have also tried to choose rhetoric that that is disarming. By expressing my well-supported or qualified views in language that is not aggressive or offensive, I strive to present arguments to the readers of this blog that can be respected - even by those readers who ultimately disagree with them. The ability to respect another's point of view while at the same time disagreeing with that point of view is the bedrock of liberal thinking and education.
I read Olyblog to educate myself on our community's various opinions on a variety of issues. Olyblog does much more for me in this vein than The Olympian's Editorial section does (though The O’s web comments section is great). I don't care about the name or the face behind the opinions that are well-expressed on this blog.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of opinions put forth on Olyblog that do not live up to the standards I have described above. It is in these sub-standard postings that I (a) get very little value, and (b) start to wonder who the person is behind the pseudonym.
You're a great addition to OlyBlog.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 10:30am.The hard thing about what you describe in your last paragraph is that it's so damn hard to do. People will agree on rules until it comes time for them to follow them or have them enforced on them, then it becomes bias and censorship. Is that just what we need to expect and get over it and do some real serious moderation where we just delete without warning and try to keep each other accountable? If we switch to a system like that, I think we should also create a process for docent accountability to the members. Oversight is important, docents shouldn't get away with abusing power, and I think at the very least we need a grievance procedure of some kind to more formally handle accusations of bias or abuse of power.
It is not disarming to say
Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 10:40am.Oh Lordy
Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 11:02am.Case in point...
Submitted by Burr on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 2:29pm.This speaks, I think, to the difference between language and rhetoric. While the language was neutral, I read the question to imply an accusation.
Olyblog would be a more constructive forum if its community could police the difference, as Guglielmo has just done.
So how do we do that?
Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 2:33pm.Just a thought...
Submitted by Burr on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 6:24pm.What about a five-star rating for each post and reply, where the stars would rate the overall fairness of the posting? Perhaps the community or the docents could attempt to define fairness in some sort of link-able, refence-able document. This document could be as simple as a link to a posting where the docents strawman the definition of fairness and the olyblog community comments. (Heck, the docents could even demonstrate the rating system on that very same fairness-defining post).
The responsibility for giving the ratings wouldn't just have to fall to the docents; all registered users could chime in once with their vote. Sure, the people with unreasonable postings would vote unreasonably as well, but on the whole I believe the ratings would reflect the truth (about fairness), which is to say, reflect the objective of olyblog nation.
By bringing in a quantitative metric, people would feel more secure about the risks associated with posting their thoughts. Sure, people might make snide or rude remarks, but if the original coments were awarded with a high number of stars and the negative remarks were discredited with a low number of stars, then what is to fear? This stands in contrast to the current approach of qualitative bantering about what constitutes fairness, which probably makes people even more skiddish about posting. Finally, it would, without doubt, encourage people be more careful about how they express themselves in both postings and replies.
It would take some technological engineering. I know nothing about web stuff, so I may be dreaming. But I thought I would throw it out there.
Long, long ago...
Submitted by Rick on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 6:28pm....we had a system like that.
Nobody used it.
Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt
Perhaps to begin...
Submitted by Burr on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 8:03pm....if the docents were required as part of their responsibility to rate each entry at least you would get some rating on every one. For the most questionable entries, more people would, in theory, be inclined to cast their votes, much as they are inclined to give their qualitative input when a questionable entry occurs under the current system (see above). But for a most entries it would probably just be the docents' votes, or perhaps just a fraction of the docents' votes. (Could docent votes carry more weight?)
This would mean a lot of work for the docents straight off, but if this were to help evolve the blog into something more credible and appealing to a broader array of the community, then the value of the blog in the eyes of sponsors and advertisers would increase. Maybe docents could even be compensated some day?
I agree...
Submitted by Rick on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 8:51pm....about developing some kind of filtering system. However, there are some issues that we have to consider. On the news-as-conversation model, it is really hard to judge the quality of a conversation based on the first few comments. There have been some fantastic, informative threads that have sprung from humble beginnings.
Whatever the solution is, it will have to draw from the collective wisdom of the whole group. This is not something that the docents should lead on. That would just provide fodder for those who claim bias.
Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt
OK...
Submitted by Burr on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 5:09am.but just to be clear, I am not talking about docents rating the quality, relevancy, or importance of a conversation or any one particular posting. Good postings take off naturally, while bad ones fizzle. I agree there is no point in bringing that level of judgement into this environment.
I am talking about rating each post for its level of fairness: are the facts cited? are the opinions qualified? is the rhetoric clean? Every post could be easily rated by every reader within seconds. There will always be room for debate and frustration with the ratings, but I think I would argue that it is better than what we have now, especially if every member can cast their vote - not just the docents.
My point about the docents is that they, as everyday monitors and stewards of the blog, could be counted on to always cast their votes, thereby ensuring that each post always has some rating (this avoids the stagnation problem you described above).
Good idea in theory
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 9:32am.yeah,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 9:47am.Good point.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 10:02am.I'm unclear about being 'safe' in Olyblog means
Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 5:05pm.I can't speak for the fearful ones
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 5:31pm.great point
Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 11:59am....the part about the docents and bias is great insight Rick-
I run into this alot with D&D, whether I am enforcing a house rule or a official rule as DM, sometimes if the play is not great, arguments about rules break out, etc...
So, I just wanted to say that perhaps a larger group of "not docents" could help envision the direction and ease the burden.
Oooh, I hate the rule arguments
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 12:08pm.Don't forget Fuzz
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 3:08pm.Spot on advice from Emmett
Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 9:02am.Letting things go does wonders.
Also...
yes
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 10:49am.Oh....the temptation to bring up recent history....
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 8:42pm.Anonymity doesn't work...
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 1:41pm.Really,
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 07/16/2008 - 7:49am.I can only imagine the challenges a certain Yoda would face when presenting a press badge. But he's got great ears!
The Canaanite's Call