There really must be some sort of room to move, some sort of breathing space to disagree with others on our blogs and to state what we feel. If someone is up to something nefarious, we have to be able to allege it, to fisk them and whether they are politicians [unable and not interested in coming back at us] or someone else closer to home, the principle is the same.
Attribution
I’ve always held – and this might be a prejudice from university days – that for every statement, particularly if that statement is negative, one must provide the evidence, [or a link to it], upon which the statement was made.
Too many bloggers, for example, might say Brown is a traitor but if you look at their blogs, the evidence is not there – they are trumpeting what some other blogger says, without attributing it.
Context
A good example of this was the Churchillian quote which spoke of an underground pack of malcontents who hold the world to ransom. One commenter pointed out that Churchill was referring to Communism. That needs to be made clear, yes but it can equally be argued that what he was referring to were the same forces behind the French Revolution and every other nefarious movement which has brought misery to mankind.
What I’m saying is – as long as it is all stated, all up front, to the best of our ability and not hidden, if there’s no sleight of hand involved, then it’s all right.
One can selectively quote but the quote must be in context and attributed as far as one can know it to be so.
Right of reply
Blogger provides a mechanism whereby you can arrange it so that the front page posts stay there for, say, two days, after which they disappear off the front page but are accessible through the chronologically arranged Archives in the sidebar.
All those older posts might have comments on moderation, pending approval. Moderation might also be used when a troll or stalker is sniffing around. Sometimes, we shut off a comments thread when things are getting out of hand.
Most bloggers do not have too much trouble with a fellow blogger’s policy of no ad hominem, within the thread, towards other commenters although the target of the post can get a right pasting, backed up by evidence.
The bottom line here is the Right of Reply within a time frame.
It is essential for the blogger to allow right of reply on that post within a given time, maybe a week but most bloggers work on a fortnight, this reply sticking to the issue, introducing no new thread unless it is connected and if making allegations, backing them up with evidence.
Time frame for the editing of posts
Look, you might be a perfect editor, able to have everything crisp and ready to go at the point of publication. I’m not and I cannot.
We all know that it goes through these phases – collect material, collate, write, edit, see preview, publish but the problem with:
1. my mind;
2. the Blogger mechanism;
3. my computer
… is that I have to see the post in place, on the blog front page, in order to make my final adjustments. There may be typos, grammatical non sequiturs, it might be that the intent of a statement, when seen in “the cold light of day” might be construed differently from what was originally intended.
I like my post to be "right".
Whatever the reason, there needs to be a period of grace, during which time a blogger can make adjustments, a reasonable time, say 30 minutes.
Unfortunately, with the advent of RSS, we have a murky situation where one’s detractors who are seeking anything they can against one, can seize a post at point of publication and insist that that is the blogger’s post. Fini. Full stop. Period.
Rubbish. That comes under the heading "unreasonable". If the blogger makes adjustments within the first 30 minutes or removes the post to Draft again, then clearly he/she’s not happy with it and wants to make it right.
There must be a short period of grace.
On the other hand, a blogger who comes back in later in the day or the next day or a a week or a month down the track to cover himself is an entirely different thing. For example, there was a blogger I knew who posted a picture of a fellow blogger as a spider. When the substance hit the fan over that, he went back and altered the post so that it looked as if he’d never done that.
That was wrong and it was dishonest.
If he’d removed it within the 30 minute period of grace, I’d have said, “Well, he realized that it was wrong and removed it. Hey, anyone can make mistakes.”
We have original RSS of many posts that blogger put up and months later he went through and sanitized them. That does not fall within this “period of grace” I’m referring to.
When later editing is acceptable
It is entirely acceptable to edit later if you acknowledge on your blog that you have done so and the mechanism I intend to use after this is to put a little “Amendment, when and why” at the foot of the relevant post or else the word “Update” and to state when and why as well.
The circumstances in which I’ll “later edit” are:
1. If I see typos or grammatical errors and here I see no need to acknowledge these alterations in the post;
2. If someone has pointed out that he/she is quite unhappy with something stated plus [and this is a big plus] if it is clear that the statement was factually incorrect. Under those circumstances, there are no time limits and I’ll alter it, with the Amendment, when and why;
3. If I see a logical inconsistency in the argument. Again, this needs to be explained at the foot of the post under Amendments, when and why.
This logical inconsistency in the argument is a tricky one because the “spider” poster mentioned above might argue that he saw a logical inconsistency and thus removed the picture. Therefore it needs to be in response to a situation at the time, within that two week period most bloggers interpret as being “current”, not as a response to threatened legal proceedings.
Take it easy
If you make a statement about me, then provided you gave me ample opportunity at the time to reply or, if I was OTT, you gave my supporters ample opportunity, then that’s that.
I can’t suddenly start applying strictures to you which I don’t observe myself and demanding saint status of you when no one expects anything of that kind in the normal course of blogging.
There has to be some sort of space in which to blog, free of Big Brother tactics – that’s what blogging is all about. That’s why we do it. If you can’t take criticism, then you shouldn’t be dishing it out.
You can say what you like about me and the likelihood is that I’ll put it on my testimonials page.
Editing policy on this blog
Please take the whole of this post as constituting the editing policy on this blog. This post will subsequently be linked to from the About page.
Disclaimer and note
1. I reserve the right to find a good picture and later add it to this post, as well as applying the 30 minute rule now for typos and grammatical errors.
2. Please don't refer to any specific person by name or blogname in comments - those comments will be deleted to prevent a bunfight over a particular person, whereas I'd like comments to stick to the principles brought up here.
All good policies, James. I , too, have to see my post on the blog to see errors. And I wholeheartedly agree that saying anything negative about another person should automatically confer rights to reply, exept in exeptional cases where the person is using your blog to malign or peddle lies to your readers.
ReplyDeleteBut one has to be scrupulous in the integrity of their facts even moreso under those situations.
James
ReplyDeleteBasically I think most of what you write is sound, although I think that your '30-minute rule' might in future incline me to read your blog only a day after particular entries are posted online, as I noticed with this particular article very significant differences in the text and layout as shown in my RSS feed against what I was presented with when I clicked through to read the full blog entry - I had not noticed this factor before, but will now be aware of it for the future.
I may update my articles at any time after writing them, without mentioning the fact, if I notice errors of spelling, syntax, grammar or errors in logic, etc. Anything else is usually highlighted with a 'see update[s] at end' message at the top of the article to warn people that this has happened.
As for 'right of reply', I read a couple of blogs regularly which do not permit (and have never permitted) comments. I have read both blogs more or less since I began my own blog (in April 2002 - and before that in my personal website's 'comments area' since late-2000) as both began at around the same time - they remain two of the best blogs in existence, in my view (they are, for information, Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish and Normblog - links in my blogroll if you are not familiar with either). I don't particularly like this policy, but I live with it because the quality of their writing if of more importance to me. If I want to comment on either blog I may send them an email or I may write an article in my own blog linking back to their blog entry in question. Sometimes I get replies from them, sometimes not, and sometimes debate (occasionally heated) has ensued. There are one or two bloggers whom I no longer link to for various reasons and in a very few of these cases I have even deleted their blogs from my RSS feeds to keep the pollution they spread out of my mind - a good example of this is the so-called 'godfather' of British blogging whose writing I abhor and accordingly have nothing to do with those 'rankings' competitions he organises regularly; I have not read his blog regularly in about five years although I do occasionally click-through on links in other blogs I do read, the last time must have been over a year ago. Basically I'm afraid that a few people have gone into 'non person' category for me.
Personally I don't consider people have a 'right of reply' in my blog to articles I write there - although of course they may write what they please aboout me elsewhere, as some have - both glowingly and disparagingly. I have permitted comments almost since the start (once I learned how to embed the code in my template) because I enjoy debate, but there are certain classes of comment I simply do not tolerate and make no apology for this, principally anonymous abuse and profanity of any kind; such comments are rigorously deleted as if they never existed, unless I decide to 'fisk' the comments in a subsequent article, as I have done occasionally.
Finally, your remarks about the need to protect yourself against your 'detractors' does seem to me to give off a slight whiff of paranoia; please excuse my temerity in mentioning this.
Best regards
Bill
Uber - we do know the duress we're under and I agree we need to be a little more careful than most.
ReplyDeleteBill - you are right to detect a whiff of paranoia, coming in cold but many long time readers know the cross I still have to bear over an old issue that's long dead and buried. I've kept it off my blog for 2009 and in perpetuity.
Thanks for the long and thoughtful comment.
Of course you have the right to do as you wish. I suppose I was just thinking aloud and organizing my own policy on this blog.
You do have a point about your RSS feed differing because I get a bit overscrupulous on posts which are clearly provocative. There's one of those coming up tomorrow morning.
I'll post it then look at it for half an hour and see if it's fair or not. [It' not a topic you'd possibly need to take issue with, by the way.]
So yes, I admit some posts have been edited at a later time, I should have mentioned up until the first comment.
I had such a situation. I posted, Dearieme commented almost instantly and that killed the chance to edit.
You needn't wait a day. Thirty minutes is enough and I'll make sure it is within that time frame from now on.
Much the same as my policies. Although if I notice next day a word is missing I will sometimes add that so it doesn't annoy me forever. I wouldn't do it, if it changed the meaning of the post though!
ReplyDeleteSometimes I will add another tag later so the post links up to others more easily too.
I think I have only ever changed one post and that is when I was told my information was incorrect. I changed the information in the post and put a footnote explaining what I had done and why with a link the person who had put me straight.
I always struggled with Blogger and not being able to see what the post would look like when I clicked publish. WordPress is quite good in that respect it allows you to preview your post as it would look after it is published. I use that feature all the time.
Fair enough. I find myself having to see the post on the page to spot ALL typos or grammatical errors but I'm more likely to have to edit it because the spacing has gone haywire.
ReplyDeleteYou think the French Revolution was a bad thing?
Cherie - yes.
ReplyDeleteWelshcakes - interesting question - all that slaughter and blood for no lasting benefit for the people? Creating bloodlust in the ordinary person? Let's just say there were better times.