Scobleizer - Latest Comments in O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

LindaTHardy — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:16:22 -0000

Was there a distributed server cluster like Amazon's S3 back in the
first bubble? No. Or if there was, it was orders of magnitude more
expensive than what startups can diamond kitty currently afford -- that's a real
difference in economics. So is the existence of Google Apps, and of
Amazon's EC2 and Simple DB, and even of Basecamp, for that matter.

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Riisager — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:15:04 -0000

Hello there

I found your posting via Google and would like to hear your opinion
regarding http://www.trustedblogging.com before it becomes public.

How do you like the concept?

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

David Russell — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:47:19 -0000

Tim O'Reilly was the one who started the incivility. The substance of the censorship charter, sorry, code of conduct, was bad enough, but Tim's choice of language only inflamed the situation further. Anyone who debates in a way he dislikes is 'pig wrestling', apparently (the code post). Anyone who uses words he doesn't like is 'potty mouthed, apparently (response post).

A word I used in my blog response to this was 'sanctimonious' - I think it is exactly the sort of attitude Tim is showing right now, and it is why I will never take part in any Code of Conduct which has his name associated with it.

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Jeremy Ladotch — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:04:06 -0000

Michael nailed it...it *only* took 17 comments. I guess the mob accusation really struck a nerve. Too bad for them it was accurate.

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Michael Markman (Mickeleh) — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:46:30 -0000

A draconian, overblown solution to a miniscule problem deserves to be rejected. The volume of the rejection notices reflects Tim's stature (and the New York Times). It's not a mob. I noticed that Robert slides from "looked a lot like a mob," to "how to respond to a mob." There was no mob. Only a really dumb idea.

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Robert Scoble — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:13:31 -0000

Paul: that URL didn't work.

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Paul Ritchie — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:10:47 -0000

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this report in an Australian newspaper appears to have attributed something to you that I can't seem to find here.

http://www.theage.com.au/ne...

Shelley Powers wasn't too impressed about their treatment of content on her blog either.

If you could help clear this up, I'd sure appreciate it.

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

LayZ — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:48:44 -0000

"“There are some nuanced legal issues to be looked at.”

What nuanced legal issues? Bloggers can disallow any type comments they want. No one has the "right" to post a comment on someone's blog. So, I'm curious what "nuanced legal issues" there could possibly be.

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Bess — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 05:35:43 -0000

I really appreciate Tim O’Reilly's kindness in supporting us against violence toward Tech Females - Cute Kitty. In the past few weeks I stop promoting events like other female bloggers stop blogging. Our baby web group is in total silence. This is not good because our sister organization thought we are dead. I understand O'Reilly doesn't want the "active" Tech Females to go silence or stay home when Web 2.0 conference is coming next week.

Blogging Code of Conduct is a nice concept but it is not very economic for all the web users. It is against the law to post sensitive information online such as social security, age and health information, whether it is true or false. It involved Civil monetary penalties. We can let the law to regulate the bad apples. Those unfriendly suspicious images and comments will help the law enforcement to hunt down the bad apples.

I will be back for a story...

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Phil Butler — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:53:19 -0000

The people against any kind of civility in general do not read Gubbi. Let me say that again, "in general", as I want everyone to know I just mean that "most" people who like the rude and uncivil behavior "generally" scan articles. LOL

Neither O'Reilly or Wales is suggesting what I term in my parallel post (sorry Robert), the prospect of a Bureau of Online Blogs, or BOOB for short. Please read an interact rather than react to articles people put their time into.

Perhaps that should be the first rule of the Web 3.0 code of conduct, if you don't read do not enter. :)

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Gubbi — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:26:59 -0000

Looking at comments here makes me wonder if people have read what TO has written at all. Here's a quote from the article:
"My goal here was to propose a system that would make it easier for sites to state their policies without having to write their own. There's no intent to create a single code that every blog is somehow supposed to sign up for, any more than the idea of Creative Commons is to say that every site must abide by their own policies."

Read "Mechanism is better than policy" and "There are some nuanced legal issues to be looked at." sections before making these misdirected comments.

And no, he's not trying to push "the Code". From TO's post:
"The mechanisms I proposed may not be the right ones, but I am convinced that the goal is worthwhile. Let's figure out the right way to reach it."

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

LayZ — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:30:37 -0000

Sigh.. Sounds like Tim wants to make the blogosphere's equivalent of the Federal Government. What's wrong with simply letting every blogger manage their site as they see fit?

"looked a lot like a mob because the feedback was so consistently anti the proposal."

looked like a mob? Hang on. How is the apparent overwhelming rejection of Tim's proposal any different than the "majority" voting against something in politics? Granted there wasn't an official vote, but I'm guessing if there was the outcome would have been the same. (and probably explains why Tim didn't even put it to a vote)

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Ilya Lichtenstein — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:19:09 -0000

@Andy Because, after laying claim to the term Web 2.0, Tim O'Reilly now wants to be known as the man who brought law and order to the blogosphere. Trust me, he's not dropping this one.

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Andy Beal — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:41:17 -0000

@Zoli - I totally agree. With such rejection of his proposed code, why is he beating a dead horse?

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

John C. Welch — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:38:28 -0000

Dude, it took him how many pages to explain this again?

Every time Tim tries to "clarify", it takes him more and more space. That's a real sign that this is just a bad idea. Clarification should take less space, since it builds on the original.

Either Tim's a dreadful writer, or this is just not a good idea.

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Zoli Erdos — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:34:11 -0000

Sorry, Robert, have to strongly disagree. This is *not* how you respond.

I agree with you in the "Take on their concerns head on and remain calm" part, but whatever happened to content? Tim's post is as civilized, calm as ever, but he is ignoring /twisting the facts.

The summary of his take-aways makes it look like most of the feedback was on refining "the Code", proposing improvements. That's BS, sorry, but have to call it what it is. The overwhelming feedback was complete rejection of "the Code".

Tim can certainly maintain his own view, just don't pretend it's the take-away from the public feedback.

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Amanda Chapel — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:38:30 -0000

We had O'Reilly's revised Code first: http://tinyurl.com/2xpqzd

- Amanda

Re: O’Reilly responds to code of conduct feedback

Ilya Lichtenstein — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:35:50 -0000

I still don't understand the purpose of the code of conduct. The only bloggers who will follow O'Reilly's code of conduct(and put up his badges) are the ones who would not make any mean posts anyway. The trolls will keep on trolling, code of conduct or not.

O'Reilly's rules, like a non-binding resolution may be a nice gesture, but useless in reality.