"When does a thread cross the line...?"

October 16, 2002 12:01 PM

Threads should be bias and threads should be made to provoke thought. However when does a thread cross the line of appropriate and thought provoking into the realm of insults and claptrap? What about this one or this one (self-post)? Should the inmates do the policing? If so, how can it policed? If a weblog is a form "journalism" should there be some sort of code of ethics? Or guidelines for objectivity?
posted by Bag Man to Etiquette/Policy at 12:01 PM (19 comments total)

The Bali FPP was a trollish post, via Fark, and the poster didn't even give credit to Fark

Just another crap FPP, that's all

I seriously doubt that weblogs are a form of journalism, though -- MeFi does have guidelines anyway
It's the old self-policing problem
posted by matteo at 12:35 PM on October 16, 2002

IMO, blogs aren't journalism -- they're editorials. Blogs don't break the news, they break the links that break the news. (Obscure links aside, naturally.)
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:06 PM on October 16, 2002

So far as I can see, self-policing means at least three things:

1) Every member should police her or himself;

2) If he or she doesn't, other members will do the policing themselves;

3) If said members forget to or overdo it, Matt will step in to do the policing himself.

4) If Matt's policing is not absolutely up to scratch, then we gain the legitimate right to make a drubken WHAT.THE.FUCK.MATT? post, shortly before being banned. ;)

Kidding aside: as a self-policing community, MetaFilter relies heavily on all three and that's how it should be.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:08 PM on October 16, 2002

wow, that bali link was lame. I didn't see it until now, and it's gone.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:30 PM on October 16, 2002

Related issues being discussed by Doc Searls.
posted by anathema at 1:36 PM on October 16, 2002

That Bali post did result in Miguel's Germaine Greer link, which would have been a much better post as it's an excellent essay.
posted by Summer at 1:40 PM on October 16, 2002

Back by popular demand and together at last: Here are Summer's Clive James link from The Guardian and my Germaine Greer one from the Telegraph.

[Brought to you by The Double Act That Refuses To Die.]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:48 PM on October 16, 2002

wow, that bali link was lame. I didn't see it until now, and it's gone.

Might I also draw your attention to the Lance Bass/Soyuz explosion post slightly below the bottom of your browser? A fine candidate for deletion.
posted by me3dia at 1:57 PM on October 16, 2002

This combination of scaremongering and hatesite link troubled me (actually, it made me act like a bit of a jerk (yeah, it's the post's fault)).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:15 PM on October 16, 2002

me3dia, because the post was worded bad, does it make it all bad? It seems were throwing out the dirty bath water with the baby. So do we delete bad post hoping a member will re-write the link better?

I now see were a rewarding system of a good posters is wanted, not by me yet. As if folks would think more, before posting you may get two posts in one. Or just plain quality, no?

Ever notice how the meta-talks cycles just as the weekly news, in two's and three's. How? I saw a link on the sniper, then after it was deleted yesterday, one was posted about serial killers yet it was related to the sniper.
Now were here for this, yet yesterday it was the homeless discussion in meta-talk, the same cycle.

Anyone else find something they think is worthy of posting. Then a similar topic or subject was posted which was meant to ensued a flame war, so you end up scrapping it? It does for me, a lot.

Yes, I do have ethics and as a child they were called manners. GYOBF is what alot of these FPPs have been. But I'm not sure that is how they were meant to come off.

Leave off the personal opinion and let the discussion flow and it will take its course like a river leaving you shoots of discussion for you to pop off on. That's what this site is for, to filter, not us filtering your mind for you.

You ever try so hard to impress and end up making a fool of yourself instead?

I now see were succinct posts are nice yet thrown in with a snark, your left with us here in meta-talk, the place where I burn more rubber on my cycle.

Snark snark, shane, thanks because of your link I get it. Now I'm off sorry for any Butcher remarks that made me a snark.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:09 PM on October 16, 2002

I second PSTail on axing the hate/scare link.
posted by languagehat at 3:29 PM on October 16, 2002

I third axing that shithouse post, despite its 42 comments. The linked site is trash, the conversation should have been aborted. OTOH, I thought the deleted USA/Aus. media discussion had potential and raised some really interesting issues. I know that appeals to authority are in no way conclusive, but if we're talking about blog-worthy posts...
posted by stinglessbee at 4:43 PM on October 16, 2002

The 'bonehead Americans' post was ill-advised at best, but the issue was and is one very much worth discussing. As we've said before, though, MeFi is not a bulletin board (or it shouldn't be). I regret losing the opportunity to do some patented Wonderchicken Style America Bashing™, but the post was a poor one.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:56 PM on October 16, 2002

"It seems were throwing out the dirty bath water with the baby."

That's classic.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:24 PM on October 16, 2002

Back by popular demand and together at last: Here are Summer's Clive James link from The Guardian and my Germaine Greer one from the Telegraph.

Best comment that should have been an FPP ever!

At the very least, the most interesting thing on MeFi/Ta today.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 7:26 PM on October 16, 2002

Metafilter: the realm of insults and claptrap.
</tagline>
posted by mcwetboy at 8:47 PM on October 16, 2002

Best comment that should have been an FPP ever!

It is now. Pardon my presumption but I've stuck 'em back on.
posted by grahamwell at 4:34 AM on October 17, 2002

MetaFilter: Hitler's Moustache!
posted by The Michael The at 6:00 AM on October 17, 2002

I don't disagree that the Bali thread was generating some legitimate discussion. However, my main beef was the way in which Islander worded the thread. If Islander really wanted to create some meaningful debate over US news media, the thread could have been crafted without being insulting.

I made reference to weblogging as journalism because for over two years I have followed a movement which asserts that weblogging can be used as a form of journalism. Having done some amateur journalism in the past I am very sensitive to any media which labels itself as "journalism." And if weblogging is neo-journalism, than weblogging should held to some of ethical standards, as other types of journalism are.

Frankly, I was wondering how others distinguish between good and bad threads and what sort personal guidelines are used when making this determination.
posted by Bag Man at 12:38 PM on October 18, 2002