Like herding cats

In recent weeks you may have seen that a blogger, Kathy Sierra, was very majorly harassed and threatened - including receiving death threats. The other day I read that there is a suggestion of drawing up a kind of 'bloggers code of conduct' that would mean people know what to expect and what is acceptable on any particular blog.

In many ways this is a good thing. Being offensive, rude or threatening is not acceptable in everyday life and can be a criminal offence but some people don't seem to believe that the rules apply in the online world (which it does). But why should anyone be subject to those things and have no redress just because it is via the internet?

There is also some suggestion that anonymous comments would be discouraged. This strikes me as a bit odd... There are a huge number of bloggers out there that do not use their real identity and I think that is fair enough. There are also different levels of anonymity in comments, there are those that just leave comments under the name "anonymous", there are those that pick an identity and use that but have no presence in the blogging world themselves and there are those who don't use their real identity but have their own blog - that might be a personal blog or on sports or politics or whatever they want it to be about, but to a large degree all are anonymous. Would I want people who read my blog and comment to have to identify themselves, well, no not really – and allowing people to use an alias but saying they have to provide a valid e-mail address surely is unworkable. I’m not actually going to check if an e-mail address is real. I think when I comment on Blogger blogs my e-mail address is blocked as a way to prevent spam (although it’s here on this page if someone actually wants it for some reason).

If people want to say something, as long as it isn't nasty, then I don't mind if I don't know who you are because that is part of the nature of the internet. I probably prefer it if someone has a blog but that is mainly due to feeling there is a bit of reciprocity - an "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours", if you prefer- or maybe it's just nosiness. I think it would be a shame if people were discouraged from dropping by and commenting because they felt they had to state exactly who they are or provide information that they don’t want to (or don’t necessarily need to).

What bothers me more is when people make assertions on their blogs as fact when actually it isn't. I think that is what irritated me so much the other day about the "Easter is just nicked from the pagans". With many things I see on the internet I would reply "Really - and where is your evidence to support that?" If I made an assertion at work I would be asked how I knew that and would have to substantiate it. If I couldn't substantiate it then I shouldn't have said it. But on the internet things become 'fact' that are actually someone's opinion or based on some urban myth or some half remembered tale that actually has no substance to it. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of good stuff on the internet, but it doesn't mean it is all true.

I am not a regular viewer of Newsnight, but I saw it a few weeks ago and the author of Guido Fawkes' website was on there (blacked out to maintain his anonymity, although it turns out that most people seemed to know exactly what his name is and what he looks like and I think these details are even on his site). His blog basically publishes the latest rumours about Parliament and politics. Anyway a chap from The Guardian was on the programme as well and he kept questioning Guido about where his information comes from and whether it was accurate. Guido kept maintaining that it was and that it came from various reliable sources, but when he was asked to substantiate some of what he was saying there was much squirming involved because when it came to it there was more supposition than first was apparent. But do people question it? Maybe some people do. But do people question a lot of what they read in the newspapers? Probably not - and a fair bit of that is, at best, biased but at least it is regulated.
I am in the fortunate position of knowing some very nice people through blogging and whilst I have received the occasional e-mail from people who are a bit odd, on the whole all has been fine. There are some people who will go to the extreme end of the scale when it comes to abusing the freedom of the internet and will say and do things that are unacceptable in any context, but the problem is that you can be pretty much anywhere in the world and access the internet and you can claim to be anyone that you want to be and then slink off into the shadows again if that's what you want to do.

I don't know what the answer is really. Codes of conduct are all well and good, but will only work if they are a) enforceable and b) actually enforced. To a degree each of us as an individual has to take responsibility. Treat fellow bloggers with a bit of respect, read things with a questioning mind and just because something is asserted as fact don't necessarily assume that it is therefore true - and if you don't like or "approve of" a particular blog or the views expressed there, then don't read it. That doesn't deal with the issue of those who threatens harm, sometimes serious harm, to others, a code is probably a good thing and so long as it does not take away some of the freedom and creativity that is present on the internet. But I do wonder how you can enforce something as wide ranging and international as the internet. It does strike me as being a bit like trying to herd cats though.