Leaving the shotgun cabinet open. Or not.

by Pål Hivand on mandag 4. august 2008 · 4 comments

Allowing anonymous commenting on online newspapers are like leaving the shotgun cabinet open, according to Jason Preston. Lately there’s been much commenting about commenting on news. Kristne Løwe now asks how journalists are coping with readers comments.

Personally I’ve never understood the point of allowing anonymous commenting. If everyone is identified (more or less) and the journalists themselves take part in their own conversations online, I see no reason why the trolls should dominate the conversation. Setting the tone and standard, as well as policing the conversation by excluding the ones that doesn’t behave, would be the tasks of a journalist who feels responsible for the conversations she initiate.

This isn’t rocket science as some seem to think, ’cause we already have some experience. Personal blogs are rarely victims of the trolls. Why is that? Because they require registration (in some form) and they are policed by the author(s). But then again, bloggers are blogging in order to converse with their readers. The conversation isn’t some unwanted consequense of the articles – it is their main purpose.

So maybe the trolls are not the main problem, maybe the journalists and the media are? In order to get good comments you need to garden the good and valued voices, and at the same time remove those who doesn’t add value to the conversation about the medium.

Just because it’s on the internet, doesn’t make it all automated. Talking to people is still «manual labour». So get of your arse and start talking

Dine synspunkter er velkomne i kommentarfeltet nedenfor, så lenge de holder seg innenfor rammene av bloggens debattregler. Når du kommenterer forutsetter jeg at du har lest og akseptert dem.

Ingen andre relevante poster.

Jason Preston

<blockquote>Personally I’ve never understood the point of allowing anonymous commenting.</blockquote>

The way I see it, the need for anonymous comments boils down to two basic things:

1. so that people can protect their identity, and
2. so that commenting is effortless, and people will do it

My argument is that #1 can be accomplished in non-public forums (i.e. identify yourself to the journalist, and let them protect your identity), and #2 can be accomplished, technologically, without allowing for an identity free-for-all.

But you're right that more important than the technology is the attitude and participation of journalists.
Pål Hivand

When I said I don't understand the point of allowing anonymous commenting, I ment the comments on news articles.

Furthermore, I absolutely agree that there must be some system for anonymous commenting somewhere else. Your proposal of letting the reporter or the editor be that protection, is absolutely a good one.

There will always be forums and medias that operates with other and wider rules of engagement.
http://www.jason-preston.com Jason Preston

Personally I’ve never understood the point of allowing anonymous commenting.

The way I see it, the need for anonymous comments boils down to two basic things:

1. so that people can protect their identity, and
2. so that commenting is effortless, and people will do it

My argument is that #1 can be accomplished in non-public forums (i.e. identify yourself to the journalist, and let them protect your identity), and #2 can be accomplished, technologically, without allowing for an identity free-for-all.

But you’re right that more important than the technology is the attitude and participation of journalists.
http://hivand.no Pål Hivand

When I said I don’t understand the point of allowing anonymous commenting, I ment the comments on news articles.

Furthermore, I absolutely agree that there must be some system for anonymous commenting somewhere else. Your proposal of letting the reporter or the editor be that protection, is absolutely a good one.

There will always be forums and medias that operates with other and wider rules of engagement.