[Reader-list] Dr. Prem's Eight fold path : Proposal for a reader-list protocol

[Aman Sethi]

>From the Guardian via The Hindu

How do you deal with idiots on the Comment Board?
Andrew Brown

 Keith Richards isn't often admired for his sanity, but he did ask one
question which should be hung on the wall of every newspaper office
where people believe that publishing comments will increase their
readership: "Why should I care about what some other person on the
other side of the world thinks about this or that?" It is not that his
question is unanswerable; but it is the one question which anyone
running a blog or a comment-enabled newspaper site needs to keep on
answering.

 To keep on giving your readers a reason to read the opinions of other
readers is a skill which has only really existed in the past 10 years.
It starts with the need to encourage good contributors, which is not
entirely different from the traditional letters pages of a newspaper —
essentially, you have to start by begging the people you want to
contribute to do so, in the hope that others will want to be
associated with them. When the London-based Independent newspaper
started, its letters to the editor was entirely shameless about
soliciting opinions from people like Graham Greene — not so much
because he had interesting things to say as because other people would
exert themselves to write well enough to appear on the same page.

 But famous contributors only work to improve the quality of letters
pages. The difficulty with online comments is that there is no
particular merit in appearing on the same page as even the most
distinguished contributors. Any fool can manage this, and almost every
fool will try. If idiots were the only problem, they could perhaps be
worked around and discouraged without too much effort. But there are a
fair few idiots with a sense of entitlement, and beyond that, there
are the purely destructive. Bad comment drives out good, while the
nature of the web means that there will always be some place where the
good contributors can go for fun if yours gets too crowded and silly.

 There are no purely technological fixes. It is certainly not worth
hoping that any forum worth having can police itself. Without a
rigorous policy of excluding fools and banishing trolls any discussion
will be wrecked, but this policy is hard to state with any greater
precision because exactly who constitutes a foolish troll varies
according to the understanding of the community. The rules of the IRC
channel for readers of the xkcd webcomic (xkcd.com) say very simply:
"Don't reduce the signal [to] noise ratio, don't be mean unless it's
funny, and don't delete things. That's all, really."

On Metafilter (metafilter.com), the founder explains why he allows
great freedom to the members: "I give you the ability to do this
because I trust you. I trust that you will act in a civilised manner,
that you will treat others with opposing viewpoints with absolute
respect, that you will contribute in a positive way to the intelligent
discussions that take place here every day."

Neither of these policies has anything in common with the boilerplate
of most big sites. They are addressed to responsible adults, not their
lawyers; but then it is adults we want commenting, not lawyers (unless
they are talking about the law).

"Don't be mean unless it is funny" may be the most difficult of these
rules to follow, and the one least fitted to large readerships. There
are some disputes where it is simply impossible to separate
disagreement from enmity. Perhaps the best solution was invented by
the Christian site, Ship of Fools (shipoffools.com), which has a
section called Hell, where those who wish to engage in interminable
arguments are welcome. — (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2008





On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Prem Chandavarkar <prem.cnt at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Arnab,
> Thanks for the honorary doctorate, although it appears that giving me the
> title of "Dr." was meant as tongue-in-cheek critique (in which case it makes
> perfect sense).
>
> I realise I did not make myself clear.  I put this list forward as a way of
> constructing a voluntary etiquette, and not as a set of legal rules.  So I
> agree with you on Shuddha's term "list etiquette".  In that sense, your
> response is useful, as my hope was that people would take the protocol,  and
> critique, modify, reject, customise and otherwise transform it - and in that
> process people may find some useful points in clarifying the list etiquette
> they wish to observe.  The only hope is that some reflexive dialogue on the
> reader-list may be useful.
>
> Having said that, let me respond to some of your points (in blue).
>
>
>
> > 1.How is a person denied the right to speak ( write?)
> > on this list?
>
>
> Nobody is actually and physically denied the right to speak.  But there have
> been some recent responses in a tone that implies that the other is not
> deserving of being heard.  I do not consider this ethically acceptable.
>
>
>
>
> > 2.Ignoring an "offensive" post seems to be the best
> > remedy as per clause (2), but that is subsequent to
> > finding that the post is offensive, isn't it? But then
> > I've already read the post. And irrespective of such
> > proposals, it seems, all posts have been pursued and
> > read. If I be blind to offensive writing on the list,
> > then what is the use of ethical list protocol that
> > Prem is proposing? Do not read, do not see--if that is
> > the suggestion, then how does Dr. Prem's  'listening'
> > feature? It is a call to stop listening.
>
>
> I am not saying "do not read, do not see".  That would be nonsensical.  I am
> saying "do not respond".  Sometimes I find an exchange on this list which I
> do not find very constructive (my personal opinion, which I am entitled to
> hold) to the spirit of dialogue that I assume this forum seeks.  I find that
> if I respond to this exchange, I merely prolong it - so that is
> counterproductive.  But if I just ignore it and only respond to exchanges
> that I consider supportive of the spirit of dialogue, and others respond in
> the same way, then over time the list will coalesce towards the types of
> exchanges that a greater percentage of the members find mutually
> beneficial.  This will come as an emergent order, rather than one imposed
> from above.
>
>
> > 3. What is wrong if , for instance, Shuddha speaks to
> > me in order to  convince me, or be convinced? When one
> > is convinced, doesn't one learn? Is trying to convince
> > others , and not to coerce, an immoral principle?
>
>
> This is a most useful critique, and I realise a clarification is in order.
> The true problem is in repetition - if, whatever others may say, a person
> keeps repeating the same didactic point.  This is propoganda, rather than
> dialogue.
>
>
>
>
> > 4. "If your desire is to convince, then please think
> > > about whether a > discussion forum is a place you
> > should intrude upon." Who is this you, Dr. Prem? If
> > you've been talking only about "issues" and not
> > "people" [ yr clause (5),] then how come you are
> > urging people to opt out of the list? You should
> > attack, going by your principle, the issue and not the
> > people?
>
>
> Another useful critique.  If this is a voluntary etiquette, its language
> should be in the first person rather than third person.  It should be
> phrased as "I" rather than "you".
>
>
>
>
> > 5. Can  negation be accomplished without engagement? I
> > think negation is the toughest job and new ideas in
> > the world have been thrown open by so called negator
> > and  not navigators-->( for instance by an  aggressive
> > thinker like Marx.)He was also the harbinger of the
> > most uncomfortable inventory of positive ideas.
>
>
> As in point (3) above, the problem lies in repetitive negation rather than
> one off negation.
>
>
>
>
> > 6. Everybody should post an idea when s/he will able
> > to help himself/herself with that!!!! ( clause 7)Why?
> > What is the need of posting then? Does a dialogic
> > "interaction" ( clause 8) call for such self-help
> > project? I doubt Dr. Prem!
>
>
> This one I do not understand.  I thought the whole purpose of the
> reader-list is dialogue.  Why would you post a message if you were not
> interested in a response that would be useful to you?
>
>
>
>
> > thanking you
> > yours in discourse and defeat
> > Arnab
>
>
> I have serious doubts about the "defeat" part.  There are very few people on
> the reader-list who can match your energy in philosophical response :-)
>
> Regards,
> Prem
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>