In his latest Online Journalism Review post, Robert Niles argues for five rules to govern online comments. He believes in the value of comments but not unconditionally. Rather, he seeks something approaching a consensus among creator and audience.
His five (and my interpretations):
1. If the author can't or won't participate in discussion online, it should not proceed in his/her absence. (End of discussion, so to speak.)
2. Once you open articles to discussion, you have an obligation to manage them. (In other words, you can't just flip the switch.)
3. Publishers should permit discussions to not proceed on particular articles or for particular authors. (In short, one size does not fit all.)
4. Try to deal with the difficult commenters. (It pays off for your wider audience to see your effort.)
5. It is not inappropriate for comments to criticize your work. (So don't treat them inappropriately.)
His five (and my interpretations):
1. If the author can't or won't participate in discussion online, it should not proceed in his/her absence. (End of discussion, so to speak.)
2. Once you open articles to discussion, you have an obligation to manage them. (In other words, you can't just flip the switch.)
3. Publishers should permit discussions to not proceed on particular articles or for particular authors. (In short, one size does not fit all.)
4. Try to deal with the difficult commenters. (It pays off for your wider audience to see your effort.)
5. It is not inappropriate for comments to criticize your work. (So don't treat them inappropriately.)
