For those who are wondering... the missing comments reported in some of the posts today is a Blogger software problem, not a plaza/parklet demon. It should be resolved by now - if not, let us know in the comments.
Since we're talking about comments, it would be super awesome if you made it so that if you did choose to comment, you would have to have a handle--none of this Anonymous BS. Every time.
Requiring commenters to link their comments to a Google Account or Open ID allows them to remain psudonymous (no one needs to use their real name or give their email, address, or phone number). But it also gives them a consistent identity and requires them to be accountable for their comments. If you say something stupid or inflammatory, I can call you on it. And I can choose to ignore other things you say. Thus fewer people would say stupid and inflammatory things, and this place would improve a lot.
I've got an idea. How about a two-month trial? Haha.
Would it be proper netiquette to open an account using one of the arch anti-plaza people's home addresses as your screen name (complete with a photo of "my" house in the profile) and then start posting pro-plaza comments using that account?
Until this kind of thing can be prevented here, these accounts are anonymous, or even misleading. Sure users can form associations with individual screen names, but that should not be confused with identification.
As the example above demonstrates, unless accounts are associated with real people, they remain anonymous to anyone without a court order.
Ideas associated with people are still just ideas, and keeping them dissociated works pretty well at preventing bias and stereotypes from entering others' judgment of them.
How would it be "super awesome" if everyone used a handle?
The example you're talking about is very easily handled with active moderation, which this site, as much as I love it, could use more of.
"Ideas associated with people are still just ideas, and keeping them dissociated works pretty well at preventing bias and stereotypes from entering others' judgment of them."
This is 100% nonsense. Let me know next time you see the New York Times printing anonymous editorials in order to prevent bias and stereotypes from affecting readers' judgment.
Zing! You got me fair and square on that Times/no bias comment. Everyone knows how unbiased their editorials are.
Thanks anyway for engaging another Anonymous user meaningfully, despite our not knowing each other like this. The ideas we are sharing still feel real to me, just so you know.
So, in your view, the easy handling of active moderation would include:
1) Knowing the real opinions of everyone
2) Being able to spot impostors when they appear
3) Taking corrective action to either change or remove the offending comments
Is that about right?
Just trying to make sense of your nonsense free position here...
Active moderation comes in all kinds. Requiring commenters to sign in, and removing the occasional post as noted above, a fraudulent post where one person pretends to be another, is hardly censorship.
@4:44: The whole point is, how are fraudulent posts recognized? Is it up to the site publisher? Does it take someone complaining about them? Does it take 10x users complaining about them? How are the complainers' complaints determined fraud-free? What are the rules? Who makes them?
@4:47: Now I understand the meaning of your comment. Please forgive any misunderstanding on my part.
After spending 15 seconds looking, the most recent Anonymous editorial in the New York Times appears to have been published two weeks ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opinion/25fri3.html
It's not up to me obviously, but I would suggest a milder form of moderation where the editor requires commenters to sign in with a handle, removes the most vicious personal attacks or when s/he reads them, and investigates the very rare case of fraud you cite when it is brought to his/her attention by an aggrieved party. Many blogs in San Francisco do this successfully.
on the New York Times:
The editorial you linked to is not anonymous. "The editors" of the New York Times stand behind it. Just like the editor here stands behind what appears under the byline of Noe Valley SF. Most newspapers have an editorial board that publishes editorials. The New York Times publishes one every day. Very few newspapers print anonymous "op-eds," which are the articles that appear on the other side of the page. (I am guilty of using the word "editorial" incorrectly above, when I should have referred to op-eds.)
By the way, I like you, and I respect your tone. I can't say the same for all your anonymous brethren. I would like to know which one you are so our conversations could continues over a longer period. That's why I like rebeka's proposal above.
Who knew there were so many conservatives in Noe Valley?
Ranting against the liberal New York Times, against a pedestrian plaza, against the mythical liberal nanny-staters who want to control the way they communicate.
I honestly think conservatives have a S&M fetish, secretly wanting to be dominated and controlled by government. How else do you explain these fantasies?
Wake up, folks. The Planning Department does not want to control you. Murphstahoe does not want to control you. The people suggesting that the tone of this blog has gone off the deep end and that maybe the editor ought to think about requiring a login do not want to control you. Maybe you really secretly want to be controlled?
The New York Times' own rules on the subject: http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/sources.html
rebekah's proposal above would stifle dialog to the point of smothering it. Just ask the ad sales team at the Times, if this blog (inironically owned by the largest new media ad company) and that newspaper are similar enough for a fair comparison to be made in the first place.
People want to interact today, and sometimes they want to interact anonymously, especially around opinionated topics. Not only is that alright, it is healthy and good for us all.
That some people choose to express their opinion in ways we find unfavorable or even objectionable is simply a reflection of where we commune and who we commune with. Trying to change those opinions by removing their voices is hardly a path to real change.
This stuff is amazing. Who is who? Who is saying what?
Who cares?
We don't even know who Noe Valley Sf is or where he/she/they live in Noe Valley.
Reminds me of a line in Alice in Wonderland, (when Alice encountered a creature on her path and asked "Who are you?"): "'You,' said the caterpillar contemptuously: 'Who are you?'"
Amusing - given my wife and I have spent some idle time trying to guess the identity of NoeValleySF.
I guess I'm as good a guess as any for someone who isn't me - since I'm pretty much the only "non-anonymous" poster around here these days.
Regardless - it's just a blog people. We might be debating and discussing but nothing is binding, "pwning" someone on the Noe Valley SF Blog will only get a high five from your buddy and an eyeroll from your spouse.
Just to clarify, I tend to enjoy reading comments left by people instead of simply the OG posting. It's where the real democratization of the internet is. When everyone is anonymous it makes it real difficult.
It seems like other people like reading the comments too or else they wouldn't make so many of them. I want to read a cohesive conversation, not super snippy comments at random.
It doesn't have to be your real name either BTW. You could be "sweater". Or "green leaf". Or Germfs, you know German Smurfs.
Yea, that's right murph: You're the only one around here (pretty much) who is not anonymous..and because of that your comments are more valid and more holier than anyone else's.
26 comments:
We knew that and we love you anyway!
hugs.
Since we're talking about comments, it would be super awesome if you made it so that if you did choose to comment, you would have to have a handle--none of this Anonymous BS. Every time.
Pretty Super please?
oh, but dear dear "rebekah"..aren't you really just as anonymous as any anonymous or steve, tim, or mike, or karen or babs or carol could be?
does it really matter, and why?
what seems to matter most is, perhaps, the content of the comment.
Pseudonymous is not the same as anonymous.
And yes it makes a difference:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/2/5/7/p92575_index.html
The CONTENT of what you say is ill-informed.
then anon @ 1:42, if it matters as you say it does, and you seem to buy that crap..then why are you posting anonymous?
your argument is meaningless and of little importance.
Wait a second, you just dismissed my comment because I posted as anonymous?
Gotcha.
so glad you understand simple english.
Put your name up there or shut up, and while you're at it post your email, address and phone number too. makes you so much more legitimate.
Requiring commenters to link their comments to a Google Account or Open ID allows them to remain psudonymous (no one needs to use their real name or give their email, address, or phone number). But it also gives them a consistent identity and requires them to be accountable for their comments. If you say something stupid or inflammatory, I can call you on it. And I can choose to ignore other things you say. Thus fewer people would say stupid and inflammatory things, and this place would improve a lot.
I've got an idea. How about a two-month trial? Haha.
I think it's safe to blame the missing comments on the stroller brigade. Heartless sidewalk-hogging, comment removing scum.
Would it be proper netiquette to open an account using one of the arch anti-plaza people's home addresses as your screen name (complete with a photo of "my" house in the profile) and then start posting pro-plaza comments using that account?
Until this kind of thing can be prevented here, these accounts are anonymous, or even misleading. Sure users can form associations with individual screen names, but that should not be confused with identification.
As the example above demonstrates, unless accounts are associated with real people, they remain anonymous to anyone without a court order.
Ideas associated with people are still just ideas, and keeping them dissociated works pretty well at preventing bias and stereotypes from entering others' judgment of them.
How would it be "super awesome" if everyone used a handle?
The example you're talking about is very easily handled with active moderation, which this site, as much as I love it, could use more of.
"Ideas associated with people are still just ideas, and keeping them dissociated works pretty well at preventing bias and stereotypes from entering others' judgment of them."
This is 100% nonsense. Let me know next time you see the New York Times printing anonymous editorials in order to prevent bias and stereotypes from affecting readers' judgment.
Active moderation definition:
Censorship.
If you don't like the way the owners and editors of this blog run things,
then don't f**king read it.
Zing! You got me fair and square on that Times/no bias comment. Everyone knows how unbiased their editorials are.
Thanks anyway for engaging another Anonymous user meaningfully, despite our not knowing each other like this. The ideas we are sharing still feel real to me, just so you know.
So, in your view, the easy handling of active moderation would include:
1) Knowing the real opinions of everyone
2) Being able to spot impostors when they appear
3) Taking corrective action to either change or remove the offending comments
Is that about right?
Just trying to make sense of your nonsense free position here...
Active moderation comes in all kinds. Requiring commenters to sign in, and removing the occasional post as noted above, a fraudulent post where one person pretends to be another, is hardly censorship.
Stop telling me what blogs to read! Censor!
Just kidding.
@ 4:43
What the hell are you talking about? You were making a point about reader bias. I responded. Now you want to talk about publisher bias?
@4:44: The whole point is, how are fraudulent posts recognized? Is it up to the site publisher? Does it take someone complaining about them? Does it take 10x users complaining about them? How are the complainers' complaints determined fraud-free? What are the rules? Who makes them?
@4:47: Now I understand the meaning of your comment. Please forgive any misunderstanding on my part.
After spending 15 seconds looking, the most recent Anonymous editorial in the New York Times appears to have been published two weeks ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opinion/25fri3.html
Thoughts on my active moderation question?
It's not up to me obviously, but I would suggest a milder form of moderation where the editor requires commenters to sign in with a handle, removes the most vicious personal attacks or when s/he reads them, and investigates the very rare case of fraud you cite when it is brought to his/her attention by an aggrieved party. Many blogs in San Francisco do this successfully.
on the New York Times:
The editorial you linked to is not anonymous. "The editors" of the New York Times stand behind it. Just like the editor here stands behind what appears under the byline of Noe Valley SF. Most newspapers have an editorial board that publishes editorials. The New York Times publishes one every day. Very few newspapers print anonymous "op-eds," which are the articles that appear on the other side of the page. (I am guilty of using the word "editorial" incorrectly above, when I should have referred to op-eds.)
By the way, I like you, and I respect your tone. I can't say the same for all your anonymous brethren. I would like to know which one you are so our conversations could continues over a longer period. That's why I like rebeka's proposal above.
This is all pretty silly, but typical of some people who "love" to control things...and "love" to control the way we communicate.
Their creed: "Live just like I do, it's better for you."
keep ranting, cause we're not buying.
Who knew there were so many conservatives in Noe Valley?
Ranting against the liberal New York Times, against a pedestrian plaza, against the mythical liberal nanny-staters who want to control the way they communicate.
I honestly think conservatives have a S&M fetish, secretly wanting to be dominated and controlled by government. How else do you explain these fantasies?
Wake up, folks. The Planning Department does not want to control you. Murphstahoe does not want to control you. The people suggesting that the tone of this blog has gone off the deep end and that maybe the editor ought to think about requiring a login do not want to control you. Maybe you really secretly want to be controlled?
The New York Times' own rules on the subject: http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/sources.html
rebekah's proposal above would stifle dialog to the point of smothering it. Just ask the ad sales team at the Times, if this blog (inironically owned by the largest new media ad company) and that newspaper are similar enough for a fair comparison to be made in the first place.
People want to interact today, and sometimes they want to interact anonymously, especially around opinionated topics. Not only is that alright, it is healthy and good for us all.
That some people choose to express their opinion in ways we find unfavorable or even objectionable is simply a reflection of where we commune and who we commune with. Trying to change those opinions by removing their voices is hardly a path to real change.
This stuff is amazing. Who is who? Who is saying what?
Who cares?
We don't even know who Noe Valley Sf is or where he/she/they live in Noe Valley.
Reminds me of a line in Alice in Wonderland, (when Alice encountered a creature on her path and asked "Who are you?"): "'You,' said the caterpillar contemptuously: 'Who are you?'"
Yuuuuuhp
Some of us would believe that murphs is behind this blog..maybe he and his wife? who knows?
But the silly and lame comment about the nail salons is a clue..time they changed that to something more interesting..or relevant.
not that I care. I'm just an anonymous mouth here.
Amusing - given my wife and I have spent some idle time trying to guess the identity of NoeValleySF.
I guess I'm as good a guess as any for someone who isn't me - since I'm pretty much the only "non-anonymous" poster around here these days.
Regardless - it's just a blog people. We might be debating and discussing but nothing is binding, "pwning" someone on the Noe Valley SF Blog will only get a high five from your buddy and an eyeroll from your spouse.
Just to clarify, I tend to enjoy reading comments left by people instead of simply the OG posting. It's where the real democratization of the internet is. When everyone is anonymous it makes it real difficult.
It seems like other people like reading the comments too or else they wouldn't make so many of them. I want to read a cohesive conversation, not super snippy comments at random.
It doesn't have to be your real name either BTW. You could be "sweater". Or "green leaf". Or Germfs, you know German Smurfs.
Yea, that's right murph: You're the only one around here (pretty much) who is not anonymous..and because of that your comments are more valid and more holier than anyone else's.
thanks for that enlightenment. I just threw up.
One need look no further than the name calling this thread has devolved into to understand the value of anonymous posting.
Post a Comment