"Yeah, I Got'cher Online Civility RIGHT HERE!!"
"Yeah, I Got'cher Online Civility RIGHT HERE!!"
So, everybody's talking about the fact that the trademark holder of "Web 2.0" is basically opening the door to turn the blogosphere into a highly distributed virtual Nanny State.
Let's see... Rules and regulations in an environment that inherently rejects both...
Thinking like that is what lost the British the Revolutionary War, right?
While there are certainly rules, mores, and expectations of individual comportment both online and off, I'm not sure what the value in publishing this code actually brings.
Well... There's the undeniable publicity value that comes from doing this on the heels of the aberrant though nevertheless high-profile threats on Kathy Sierra (condemned here), but I digress... But not really...
Now... They aren't bad suggestions... It's just kind of arrogant to think that they will do anything to civilize online discourse outside the groups that are, honestly, likely to follow those codes whether codified or not. While it makes sense for corporations to outline and enforce acceptable online behavior, owing to the emerging legal necessity to do so, presuming to lay such rules on the online community at large is, frankly, presumptuous.
I imagine Tim O'Reilly as the Moses depicted in History Of The World: Part One: "The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen... *CRUNCH* Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!"
Mainstream media isn't helping here. The New York Times chose to take an extreme, position it as more of a norm, and gave this notion of a code more attention than it deserves.
Online communities were 99% fine prior to this code. Capitalizing on that 1% in a half-hearted Hail Mary play for online community leadership seriously misses the point.
UPDATE: I'm with Andy: "Why Code-of-Conducts Don't Have a Role to Play"
Technorati Tags:
civility, o'reilly