Has the time come to ban comments on the Traveler? That's not a philosophical question or a parlor game, but one driven by concerns among readers that constructive conversation is hard to come by on the site.
By and large, the volume of comments on the Traveler is dominated by a very, very small handful of individuals. And they can, at times, take things to extremes and give no quarter. More than a few times various commenters have accused others of being trolls, simply lurking out there, waiting to bait others into an argument, or made gratuitous comments, and worse.
And a handful of times a year we get private emails complaining about this behavior. Here's just the most recent example:
The NPT comments section has long been hijacked by conservative/libertarian trolls like ecbuck to the point that many of us who would *like* to engage in conversation and intelligent discourse regarding park issues are dissuaded from doing so by the truculent, confrontational, repetitive and axe-grinding nature of such ideologues. I am disappointed in your feckless moderation of the comments section because the parks are my passion and I would love to contribute, but I have come to the realization that I should take my participation -- and views of your ads -- elsewhere.
Now, whether Traveler's moderation of the comments queue is feckless is a matter of opinion. But we can tell you that we lack the manpower it takes to moderate on as strenuous a basis as some might hope.
What begs a question is whether there would be greater reader participation if the comments weren't seemingly monopolized by a handful of readers, some unafraid to wield an ax? With nearly 1.7 million readers a year, and less than a dozen regular commenters, you have to wonder.
Frankly, nothing would be more welcome to us than to see more reader involvement in the site.
The only lasting solution would be to bring an end to comments, which would be unfortunate, as we truly believe conversation is key to understanding, and possibly solving, some of the issues that the national parks face. Over the years we have reached out to those most criticized, have tried "no follow" buttons, and even banned folks, all to no avail.
So, how would you handle this situation?
While you ponder that question, let us repost our Code of Conduct for those who comment:
Code of Conduct
The blogosphere is a pretty free-wheeling place. As a result, it has developed a persona, right or wrong, of playing fast and loose with facts, with running roughshod over some posters, with allowing anonymity to serve as a shield for attackers. Some bloggers have called for a code of conduct for the blogosphere, and we at the Traveler support that movement.
As I mentioned recently, we view the Traveler as more of a web magazine than a blog. But that doesn't lessen the need for a code of conduct, both to guide the Traveler's writers and to let those who desire to comment on our articles to know there are limits as to what is appropriate.
For those who might immediately jump to the conclusion that we're implementing a measure of censorship, that's not the case at all. Rather, just as there are accepted norms for what can be broadcast and printed in mainstream media, there are accepted norms for the interchange of ideas on the Traveler. All we expect from you is a measure of civility. Here's how Colin Rule, director of the Center for Internet and Society, addresses the expectation of civil discourse:
So is it true that civility and politeness should go out the window when confronted with deep and intense feelings? Well, not to sound too much like "Mr. Manners," but I think it's at that point that civility and politeness come to matter more. When emotions get the better of someone, and that person uses language intended to incite and shock rather than reason, it creates an easy target for the other side; the most likely response becomes a similar provocative statement, and then the exchange becomes focused on the excesses of each statement rather than the issues at hand.
Beyond an expectation of civility there are times when, quite frankly, just as radio and television moderators feel a need to redirect their guests back to the subject at hand, it might be appropriate for us to steer the flurry of comments back to the topic at hand. And we won't hesitate to do that, as we have a very well specified mission statement that guides this patch of cyberspace.
With that said, here are some general guidelines that will guide the code of conduct for the Traveler (with the understanding that they could continue to evolve):
* The authors of posts take responsibility for their words.
* Abusive comments and personal attacks will not be tolerated and will be deleted.
* Those behind abusive comments and personal attacks will be contacted privately and asked to be more constructive in their comments. If the comments and attacks persist, the author will be blocked from the site.
* Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.
* If a subject of a post feels they have been wronged or simply wishes to respond in a post as opposed to a comment, that will be allowed.
In general, we at the Traveler have been pretty tolerant of comments. That's been evidenced most recently by some made this past weekend that were allowed to stand. We do not want to sanitize this forum, nor do we want to create the impression that it tilts one way or the other politically or philosophically. Yet there is a line, one that should not be crossed, in the common decency of civil discourse. If all you can do is throw stones and slurs, take it elsewhere.
Anonymous comments will continue to be allowed because there obviously are times when whistleblowers want to shield their identity, when the topic is political dissent, and when the individual doesn't want his/her comments attached to the organization they work for. That said, we encourage those who do not fall under those situations to be up front with who they are and not rely on what's been termed "drive by anonymity" to attack someone.
Regardless of how you decide to identify yourself, you are expected to adhere to the points above.
Comments
This is a major problem with all social media.At one time it was the place to find the real underlying issues to a written article.But too ofter it has become a place just spew useless attacks on the next person.
I really no longer place much value on most blogs because of this so called troll atmosphere we live in.
We are put on this wonderful planet earth to love and help the next human. It has become anything but that with wreck less insults more often than not..
This is a wonderful website with lots of useful information that often gets lost for all the wrong reasons.
Kurt - I would be interested to know what prompted your emailer to write. I assume this was a recent email. I reveiwed the comments for the last two weeks. Of the 23 articles that had comments, I posted on 4. One was a dicussion on pot and the impact of legalization on cartels and growing in National Forests. A very civil discussion with no name calling and fully on topic. A second was a discussion of dogs in the parks. Certainly disagreement but again civil and on topic. Number 3 was the refinery near Roosevelt Park. Here I challanged the often repeated but never substantiated myth of consensus on global warming. The challange was to an infrequent (first time?) poster. Here Rick B jumped in with an attack on me, not the other way around. And while the conversation may have been deemed "off topic" it was the other poster that took it in that direction, not me. Finally was the discussion of the Congressal Scorecard. I did research on the survey methodology and exposed the suvey for what it was, apartisan attack not a survey using generally acceptable statistical practices. I presented facts and attacked noone It was I that was attacked by Rick and Lee, not the other way around. Once again I suggest your emailer is upset with the content of my comments not the tone. Some people just don't want to hear things that contradict their beliefs, especially when those things are true.
Kurt, you and I have talked about this repeatedly, and I plead "guilty" to my own lapses. However, what do you think it was like at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, or debating the Thirteenth Amendment in Congress in 1865? Ideas are always contentious, and yes, often morph into many things.
My solution remains a simple one. Every comment should be treated as a letter to the editor, in other words, everyone has to sign his or her actual name. Actually, the most vociferous commentators have already done that for the most part, so I have no problem with their views or style. In universities, I used to live under a cloud of secrecy defending "scholarship." I would rather have The Traveler any day of the week. Yes, EC bugs me at times, but he is consistent. And he always signs his name. Against that, I remember all of the knives in the back wielded by academe. The most disingenuous people are still found in colleges and universities, and you can take that opinion to the bank.
Censorship is a slippery slope. The moment you insist on "purity" of thought and action, you are likely to get everything but. Take all of the "safe zones" now springing up at universities. Since when was life ever "safe?" You don't want to be offended? Sorry, but opinion offends, to say nothing of ideas. Now that we have safe zones, i.e., censorship, we don't have universities worthy of the name. Oh, but your opinions are hurtful to people. Yes, and get used to that in a democracy. When I was a kid and my school mates called me fat, it hurt, but it also was the truth.
Facing the truth I lost 80 pounds. Lying to myself I kept right on eating. We battle with images and opinions opposite to ours every day. That doesn't mean those opinions are wrong. Last Saturday in The Wall Street Journal, I read one of the best articles I have ever read, by David Gelernter, a professor at Yale. "[Our] schools are corrupt and the universities rotten to the core, and everyone has known it since the 1980s. But the Democrats are owned by the teachers unions, and the Republicans have made only small-scale corrections to a system that needs to be ripped out and carefully disposed of, like poison ivy. The Emasculated Voter to whom no one pays any attention is the story of modern democracy. Instead of putting voters in charge, we tell them they're in charge, and it's just as good. That's the Establishment's great discovery in the Lois Lerner Age."
Is that not the problem The Traveler wrestles with itself? The people in power don't want the oversight, so they tell us we're too harsh. A good friend, and a great father, husband, and grandfather, recently lost his position simply because one of his newest employees, behind his back, accused him of being "insensitive." What in God's name is that, if not a power play meant to destroy ideas?
No, The Traveler's commentators are hardly perfect--including me. But I have found all of them sincere. If we want a better Park Service--and better national parks--we will not let that sincerity go just because a few of us find the truth "insensitive."
Alfred, Nice comment. I especially agree with your last paragragh. " I have found them all sincere." Not sure I agree about your opinion of annonimity though. I think there are times when that may be important for an insider's protection but getting at the truth.
I like tahoma's proposal to limit each user to some number (I would make it a low number, like 2) of comments per week or per article.
It is a problem, and I myself complained at one time. I also find that I have been reading the traveler less because of the lack of civility in the comments. I enjoy and read comment sections specifically because it offers another viewpoint and perspective. I want to hear opposing views as long as they are respectful no matter how much I may disagree. It is a chance to lean something. If you want a forum where everyone agrees with each other than what is the point? I don't run a website but if I did I think I would enact a 3 strikes rule. Violate the code of conduct and get a warning, second time a suspension, third time you are done. Perhaps this isn't practical, certainly difficult to keep personal bias out and is bound to cause anger in some. Finally, I'm not surprised at the comment critical of ebuck since I have a pretty good idea where it came from, I am surprised they can't see how offensive their own comments frequently are. While ebuck can certainly be argumentative he does so far more civilly and respectfully than some of those who disagree with him. It is a shame because it greatly detracts from what are often good points.
I have a hard time believing that the letter reprinted above represents the genuine sentiments of many readers.
First of all, most of the informational articles I read on NPT receive 0 comments, and I highly doubt that people are avoiding the comboxes due to fear of trolling. It's likely that they just don't have anything interesting to say. It's the opinion pieces that attract the most comments and lead to some of the more "stimulating" discussions. Isn't that the purpose of an opinion article? To provoke discussion?
Second of all, I don't think anyone can dispute that the overall editorial perspective of NPT is left-of-center. The combox provides an opportunity for those with other political perspectives (yes, we love the Parks, too!) to interact and even disagree with the conclusions promulgated in the opinion pieces posted here. In some cases, like that ludicrous Congressional "report card" posted a couple of weeks ago, the bias is so transparent that it's difficult to be "constructive".
Yes, some of us can be very passionate about certain issues, whether it is environmental protection, recreation on public lands, access for those with diabilities, or government corruption. As long as the focus is on the issues and not personal attacks or insults, I don't think heated debate is going to drive people away.
I agree that sometimes what I read in the comment section, has sometimes risen to a level that is probably offensive to a few. But I for one enjoys reading the comments almost as much as the articles. Yes you have a few that pick at each other. I accept that ecbuck is not going to agree with the grand concensus of scientists on global warming or my opinion of it. So be it. But i feel there are always going to be doubters on all subjects. If the discussion stays away from being personal, all responses should be accepted. I enjoy that Eric makes me put my opinions to test. I may not argue with him but I respect his percpective. I do agree that if commenters can add something to the discussion, they should aim to be accepting of differing opinions when presenting their own view. But lets not make the comments be just one view.