Bloggers' Ethic

Leaving Comments - Be careful what you ask for, you might get it!

My last post DiggDotCom has caused an uproar in the local forum I frequented. I'm not getting into a point-by-point fight here, I’m going to focus on the underlying cause that provoked my response to her answers.

It's true that Digg is a technology news website. But Digg also combines social bookmarking, blogging, RSS, and non-hierarchical editorial control. With Digg, users submit stories for review, but rather than allow an editor to decide which stories go on the homepage, the users do.

If the users happened to like say, a photoblog full of baby's pictures and got dugg several hundred or thousand times, who are you to say it's not frontpage's material? If you don't like it, don't Digg It. Better still, Bury It!

I also doubt she ever heard of the word t-o-p-i-c. Let's us take a stroll to Digg's frontpage. In your Digg's profile there are six main topics for you to choose to watch. They are "Technology", "World & Business", "Sport", "Science", "Gaming", and "Entertainment". Under each main topics, there are many many sub-topic. So, to be on the frontpage, it does not belongs exclusively under the topic of "Technology" and current affairs as you claimed!

Now we go to each story submitted. On the left of each story, there's a Digg's badge with the number of how many times the story has been dugg. Under each story, there are five links. They are comments, blog it, email it, topic and last but not least the bury link. If you can only draw a straight line and no idea what to write, click on the Blog It link. Yes, you can blog about each story you choose. Digg will copy and paste the story you choose for you. Write a few lines about it (blog it) and submit the story. Who said it has to be genuine? If you don't like the story because it is not original, Bury It! End of story.

But like a typical thief, when you're caught with both of your hands in a cookie jar, you will start pointing fingers to other directions as though it validated your thieving action. I went to the said post. Sxxxxxx wrote a very short post about the absurdity of a death cat's post to be Digg's material. And he received two comments for it, not the usual twenty plus comments! I like his style, short and to the point. And that's his stand without involving others! Lol, it's just like something I read a while back. It goes something like this (since I can't find the original quotes),

Reporter: "Hi Blair. Why did you make the Iraqi angry?"

Blair : "Did I? I read something Bush wrote on his blog that the Iraqi have Mass Destruction Weapon. And I did start with, I'm sorry"

Today we knew both of them are A** H*****!

My friend, I write posts on my blogs and forums from time to time, but when I do so, I refrain from criticizing other people’s work. If I don’t have the space to offer constructive criticism, I try not to criticize. As a matter of fact, I try to help my fellow bloggers whenever I can. I tried not to be sarcastic and belittle my fellow bloggers' work.

There’s nothing to stop me from doing differently, of course. I have every right to write as I choose. But I choose NOT to do that sort of thing, because it’s self-indulgent. When I started blogging, I made a conscious decision that every post would be about trying to start a constructive dialog. As a part of that, every time I post – especially when I criticize somebody else’s work or words – I think twice first. I try to decide whether I’m writing because I honestly think what I have to say might be valuable to somebody else or whether I’m just expressing myself for the pure pleasure of self-expression. If it’s the latter, I tell my beloved wife or my friends what’s on my mind, or I write it in my private journal, but I don’t post it on this blog or forum for that matter, where I have made a commitment to the people who don’t know me and yet still are willing to take the time to read what I write.

There should be an expectation of civility in interactivity (as in forum threads and leaving comments)as much as there is in life. Too many people judge interactivity by the worst of it, like refusing to visit Kuala Lumpur because you hear there are a few troublemakers there. This, I think, comes mostly from people who wish they could dismiss interactivity, and the internet and blogs with it. Sorry, but interactivity and Kuala Lumpur are here to stay.

Then there are some people assuming that the rest of us can’t figure out who the troublemakers are. Mostly they hide behind nicknames. Who is going to protect us from them? That is the moderators in media’s (and, in other contexts, government’s) job. People sometimes ask me why I don’t kill stupid comments from various bozos. I reply that I figure most people know they’re bozos and judge them accordingly.

Unfortunately, your comments don’t invite thought and they certainly don’t invite dialog. In this case, the people in general (as you claimed) you were criticizing are most up and coming bloggers and your comment certainly wasn’t conducive to encouraging an up and coming bloggers to think about the problem from your perspective. Nor did it encourage your fans to look at both sides of the discussion with open minds. Who would bother to go read something sarcastic? And by the way, you knew your comments could cause someone to be provoked. You purposely, pre-meditated to cause an uproar by saying you're sorry. Honest? I doubt it.

I know I can't tidy up comments any better than you can tidy up the world. People are messy and so is life. I've got to get used to it.

Nonetheless, I do believe that this is my space and I have the right — and sometimes responsibility — to maintain a proper atmosphere for conversation. I rarely kill comments but I choose to sometimes when someone goes overboard.

That's all for now. Here's some world news brought to you by The News Rooms. Have a good day.