During the holiday season, Armed Liberal wrote "Offline For A Bit, And Thinking About This Place" about the tone of the blog, and how the place was moving away from what he wanted to see. I assume he has been thinking about what to do, as he said he would, during his time in France. Perhaps it will give him ideas. Perhaps it will give him a perspective on veritable elite rudeness, and he'll chill about it all. But I paid close attention to the fact that he does consider this a serious issue - one that affects his interest level.
Along those lines, a recent thread reminded me of this bit in the Winds' comments policy, which has been in place for a long time:
"Rule #4: Our authors work hard to produce worthwhile, interesting stuff. The best way to respect that is to engage their material. They (and we) tend to be unhappy when people "hijack" the comments section to post unrelated material, especially material that is likely to take over that comments section. If a post [JK: meaning comment] isn't on topic and doesn't contribute anything worthwhile, I'll consider removing it. We still give pretty broad latitude re: relevance, and we'll usually try to steer things back on track with a simple request - but I must admit, I'm getting a bit faster on the draw with this than I used to be."
That's the key. Or, to put it in blunter form, the interests of our contributors trump the interests of anyone who cares to use our comments section. The contributors are the folks that make this online destination go, and if push comes to shove, their happiness takes priority over those with a lesser stake. That's the lesson of Communitree.
I do work to apply "related" in a broad sense, as noted in our comments policy post, but it isn't anything goes here. The fact that someone walks in off the street and helps himself to your fridge contents trumps the fact that they may be polite about it or "reasonable" - the action itself is wrong. Hijacking a post thread falls into that category, and celebrim is right at that point: get thine own blog, and then you can set the topics for discussion and reasonably insist that people respond to you. That would be right, and polite, of them.
If there's something folks really want to say here, that has no topical relevance to a post, we've published enough Guest Blogs, including those from folks we disagree with, and our email addresses are listed.
I'm still thinking about the particular thread in question, how the comments fit or don't, and next steps. But basic respect for the time of the folks who contribute, expressed as positive or negative engagement with the subjects of their posts, is something I do plan to be more insistent about in the coming year. And I thought a heads-up about that is the sort of thing that's only fair to all concerned.
Anything you can do to encourage your contributors to contribute more often is a good thing. Good luck and God bless.
On the other hand, Andy Warhol did always say that he never read his publicity but did weigh it.
When throwing your pearls before swine it might be wise to thank the swine for responding, no matter what the nature of their responses might be.
Good.
Over the past year, I've become fascinated with the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame ...
... no, really, this is on-topic! ...
... and seen one real-time experiment in unfettered, free-speech comments unfold. That was the policy at the premier anti-Hoax blog, KC Johnson's Durham in Wonderland.
In many ways, Johnson was extraordinarily successful as a blogger, and some of that was supported by things that were brought to light in the comments. In other ways, the comments detracted from the blog's posts. There was a great deal of anger, incivility, and off-topic discussion that contributed to driving away a number of reasonable commenters with valuable insider perspectives. Conversations that could have happened and should have happened, didn't.
The Winds model of encouraging intellectual diversity while setting boundaries on acceptable conduct is much superior, in my opinion. In other words, I concur with David Blue's note above (#2).
Joe, I hope as you do that Marc comes back from his time away with some fresh ideas with how to advance and promote civil discourse. Likewise, I encourage your resolution to pay closer attention to commentary.
That said, WoC remains a remarkable site. All of your contributors and many fine commenters have created something quite unique, in my view.
Keeps WoC a daily read for me.
Andrew Olmstead, who used to post here was killed yesterday in Iraq. (link)
(Fixed link: David Blue)
Joe,
Though off-topic here, I would appreciate it if you would have a post with a remembrance for Andrew Olmstead. While a conservative, he was a favorite of mine to read. I'll have more to say in that thread.
It's acceptable to interrupt with a comment post on a genuine social emergency, and mourning the dead immediately is such an emergency. It is good, it is morally necessary, not to let this pass without note.
This is civility, piety (for some) and common human decency. I'm for it.
So thanks.
And, Andy Olmsted: much respect.
(Edited to correct the name, not to conceal an error but out of respect for someone who deserved infinitely more respect than I can express.
I will also correct anyone else who wants that, as well as deleting the requests.)
"Though off-topic here, I would appreciate it if you would have a post with a remembrance for Andrew Olmstead."
Olmsted. That's Major Andew Olmsted. Not "Olmstead."
It's on the right sidebar of this blog: Olmsted.
I think everyone is devastated just now. God knows I am.
"Andrew," of course.
The last full measure of devotion. Not in vain, Major.
Andrew Olmsted, Rest in Peace.
I just found out from Instapundit.
Damn.
It all seemed so easy and fun. Like we would last for ever.
Rest in Peace Andrew. And if you have anything to report try to get a message back.
Back on topic. Since life must go on.
I was part of the diversity AND OT wanderings (probably incivility too) at Durham in Wonderland.
It was a fun place when it was hot.
However I must say that Polanski was getting too full of himself at the end.