April 9, 2007

code of conduct

Tim O’ Reilley’s new blog­ging “Code of Con­duct” is get­ting a lot cove­rage at the moment. Exactly why, I’m not sure. I sup­pose if it makes some peo­ple feel bet­ter about their lives, then that’s a good thing. Wha­te­ver.
I much pre­fer John­nie Moore’s Code of Con­duct. With only three points to it, it much shor­ter. And it’s far clo­ser to something I would write, myself.

1. If you look that entire con­tent of this blog, you’ll get some notion of how I con­duct myself. It varies a bit.
2. You’ll also see how visi­tors con­duct them­sel­ves. It, too, seems to vary.
3. The past is not neces­sa­rily a guide to the future.

Johnnie’s one of my favo­rite blog­gers at the moment. And he’s even more inte­res­ting to hang out with in real life.
[UPDATE:] Jeff Jar­vis is not impres­sed with Tim’s efforts to “play hall monitor”.

7 Responses to “code of conduct”

  1. Kimber says:

    I’m a gol­den rule gal myself.
    Try to do no evil.
    Of course you being even more evil than Mic­ro­soft (are you still?) would have to tweak this.

  2. Keith Handy says:

    I liked Codepope’s reply on The O’Reilly radar blog:
    “But then this entire dis­cus­sion is basi­cally about the best way to nail jelly to the cei­ling to stop it being used in a food fight. It’s going to be a messy fai­lure and even if you do manage to do it, there’ll still be enough jelly around to start a food fight, and now there’s a ham­mer and nails which can get thrown around.”

  3. asdf says:

    Can’t peo­ple just mode­rate com­ments?
    If some com­ment is crappy, don’t okay it.
    No mat­ter what, a blog­ger can’t do much against someone who is seriously deran­ged outside of what can be done in rea­lity: Con­tact the police.
    Or don’t I get it?

  4. Chad says:

    I read every post from gaping­void and The O’Reilly Radar. Tim’s posts are always infor­ma­tive; I hear of a lot of neat tech pro­jects by rea­ding them. I was sur­pri­sed to see this lame “code of con­duct” thing show up.
    I know of the back­ground situa­tion with Kathy Sie­rra that is promp­ting all of this dis­cus­sion and that much is unfor­tu­nate. This code idea seems an overly sim­plis­tic self-congratulatory pat on the back, though. It’s odd, coming from such an inte­lli­gent web guy. It’s with good inten­tions I’m sure, but it’s not effec­tive at all and is gene­ra­ting a lot of noise.
    At least the bad­ges rock!
    dot dot dot

  5. RKR says:

    I follow Emily Post’s Eti­quette. But, ever­yone once in a while the white glo­ves have to come off!

  6. Kathy Sierra says:

    For the record, I had nothing to do with the Code of Con­duct (except for the obvious — that I made that-post-I-now-regret), was never part of any dis­cus­sions or “efforts” as a result of my post, and I don’t think the Code of Con­duct makes any sense (or would ever work).
    That a blog­ger should be allo­wed to have their own com­ment policy (without fear of cen­sorship cries) seems more than enough, and pro­bably all that *could* or should be done. This is a peo­ple pro­blem, and nothing will pre­vent peo­ple from hate, harass­ment, threats, sexual inti­mi­da­tion, whatever…on either your own or someone else’s blog– and it grows in direct pro­por­tion to your visi­bi­lity. It’s easy enough to hide one’s iden­tity, spoof the iden­tity of another, anony­mize your IP address, etc., and I think the abi­lity to be anony­mous is too impor­tant to dis­cou­rage.
    So, you either can take it and give as good as you get — something Hugh can do ; ) or you get out and take another path, which I’m doing (path unk­nown, I just know it won’t be me as a (vir­tually) lone blogger/speaker, etc.)
    I just wan­ted to get the word out that I was not part of this Code of Con­duct – or any other attempt to *do* something that may have been promp­ted by what hap­pe­ned to me.

  7. J Wynia says:

    I still pre­fer my per­so­nal code of con­duct, which I’ve used for seve­ral years, online and off: Don’t be a Jac­kass.