Just read the BBC’s initial analysis of kathygate…which popped up an interesting point.
“others are discussing the need for a bloggers code of conduct” something that Euan Semple has picked up on here (wonderfully dealt with such ascerbic wit). There’s obviously a discussion going on here, but amidst all the sh1t that is flying maybe it is hard to discern, or maybe i’m just not reading the right stuff!
but surely there’s an implicit code already in place. the sociology of blogging encourages it and the technology helps to enforce it and it is simple. “you are responsible for your words”.
do we need more than that? Even if we did, could we realistically expect the blogosphere to flourish with draconian measures to restrict what we say, when and about whom? Would it ever be enforceable (cue: startups feverish attempts to fill a void that doesn’t need filling)?
chris locke, who is at the centre of the kathygate storm, states he has subscribed to this for years and his response to the allegations against him is frank and honest, and clearly demonstrates that mantra in his post. there’s no shirking from what he said, but a defence based on setting straight what he did say, what he didn’t and what he could and couldn’t control. props to rageboy for that.
there’s no doubt that kathy sierra has been wronged here. but a witchunt ain’t gonna solve it, just the same as it doesn’t really solve much anywhere else in the world. of course some seek and flourish based on the anonymity of blogging and will use it negatively, but isn’t that just reflecting society in general?
let’s get back to the basic premise…resist this urge to censor and stifle the creativity, freedom of expression and wonderful debate that has built the blogosphere. if not, we’ll surely kill it.