I was catching up on the gazillion blog posts piled up in my Google Reader this afternoon and came across something interesting in the comment thread to a post*. My understanding of the opinion expressed in the thread is that if Blogger A disagrees with something Blogger B wrote in a post, Blogger A must first express his/her disagreement in a comment on Blogger B's original post before Blogger A may write his/her own post on the issue.
Really? Is this a rule of blogging etiquette with which I'm completely unfamiliar? Cuz I'm about to disagree with another blogger and, you know, I wouldn't want to do it the wrong way!
The way I see it is that everything written on a public blog is fair game for other bloggers to link to and post about as they choose. I write all my posts with the realization that anyone who reads them may comment on them or write his/her own posts in response. These comments or posts may agree with me, disagree with me, extend the discussion further or in a different direction, or any combination of the above.
I don't expect other bloggers who write posts in response to mine to first ask for my permission or even to give me notice of what they are about to do. As long as they link to my post so I can go over and thank them for the link or defend myself, as the case may be, I'm cool with it.
This is not to say that I think bloggers should get in the habit of essentially flaming each other on their respective blogs. But if another blogger writes something that I disagree with, I may either say so in a comment or write a "rebuttal" post, depending on the nature of the disagreement, my relationship with that particular blogger, and the length of what I have to say.
So what do the rest of you think? If I'm thinking of writing a post disagreeing with something another blogger wrote, am I obligated to first leave a comment detailing the nature of my disagreement? If that blogger responds positively to my comment, am I no longer allowed to write my post? If my rebuttal is likely to be very long, is it sufficient to leave a comment giving notice of my intent to write a new post on the matter? Or can we just accept that we are sometimes going to disagree with each other and dispense with having to inform people with whom we disagree that we are about to disagree?
*I am not disclosing the blog post or the bloggers who wrote the specific comments so as not to be calling out specific bloggers. You'll just have to take my word for it that I'm not making this up!
Ponderables
1 hour ago
23 comments:
I guess I see it as something of a conversation. If I were listening to two people talking about a topic, and I wanted to throw in my two cents, I'd enter into their conversation & express my opinion, rather than going off and talking about their conversation to other people. It's not that you can't do it; it just seems that if you're interested/piqued/annoyed by a conversation you'd want to jump in rather than slink off and vent about it elsewhere.
[re-reading]
That sounds a little negative. All I mean is that if someone is disagreeing with you, you'd probably prefer to know (by comment or what-have-you), rather than being blindsided by a big, rant-y post excoriating what you'd written. It's certainly not necessary, but instead feels like a simple courtesy.
Admittedly I'm new to blog posting, but it seems a little odd that blogger A should have to appraise blogger B of his/her dissent first. Also I think it depends on the relationship between bloggers A and B. Does the disagreement arise, as DamnGoodTechnician suggests, as part of a conversation between the bloggers? Or is it more akin to overhearing a conversation between strangers in a public place?
Yeah, fuck that noise. Blogging isn't a motherfucking care bears tea party. You wanna have some kind of nurturing gentle discussion with your pals, password protect your blog and only give the password to your buttbuddies. Otherwise, sack the fuck up and deal.
Hmmm, I wonder what thread that was on! The thing to remember is that comments threads are like conversations, sometimes things are thrown in as an aside.
DGT--I see your point, and I would completely agree with you if it were a real-life conversation. I kinda see blog posts as a bit different, since a post isn't a conversation exactly, but more of a public proclamation to both friends and strangers alike. I think one could also argue that a response post is a form of continuing a continuing the conversation, blog-style, as long as the response post isn't simply a "you suck" rant.
Biochem Belle--I agree it depends a lot on the relationship between the two bloggers. There are definitely bloggers who I consider to be my "blog-friends," but I don't generally treat their blog posts as being directed specifically at me. So my view is that another blogger's post is more like an editorial I read in the newspaper, or something like that.
CPP--Why am I not surprised that that's the side you'd come down on? :-)
SM--I get that, but I still think it's an interesting position to take and therefore worthy, so to speak, of some discussion, if only for my own edification. Besides, I seem to recall this specific point becoming a bone of contention between several different bloggers somewhere in that thread, so I don't really think it was treated as an off-the-cuff comment that was soon forgotten.
If I'm thinking of writing a post disagreeing with something another blogger wrote, am I obligated to first leave a comment detailing the nature of my disagreement?
Nope, you're not obligated. If you'd like to apprise them of your opinion, you may want to let them know after the fact. Personally, if someone disagrees with something I wrote, and they blog about their disagreement, I'd like to hear about it, if for no other reason than I can understand their POV and see if I need to re-evaluate my own opinion.
All I'm gonna say is that there's a difference between saying "I don't like X" and "no-one should do X".
I don't like basketball, for example ;)
one of the things that is being overlooked in this particular instance is a specific feature. A blogger made very threatening comments which could be taken to apply to a wide swath of biomedical scientists. Yes I realize there was an attempt to compartmentalize the threat but that is total crap because what mattered here was the impact, not the intent.
It is not inconceivable that some critics of the stated position do not find themselves all that interested in commenting directly at a blog hosted by such a threatening blogger.
Cath, you didn't threaten bodily harm against people who play basketball* however...because that would be crazy talk and likely get you examined for mental stability if you kept it up.
*oh, excuuuuuuse me. people who steal *your* basketball. /eyeroll
Etiquette? Manners? Anonymous Blogging is going main stream I suppose.
Anyway, I'd leave a comment saying I got a lot more to say on this topic and I'm saying it on my blog.
Tom--Yes, I completely agree with you on hearing back about someone else's dissenting post.
Cath--How dare you say that you want to completely abolish basketball? What about all the poor basketball players whose lives will be totally ruined just because you don't like the sport?! :-) I'm only kidding. I do see your point and was only trying to determine if I have been in violation of some blogging rule I wasn't aware of.
DM--Look, I think everyone involved has agreed that what Dr. J said was completely unacceptable. Whether or not people will accept his explanation at face value is for each person to decide for himself/herself. In my personal opinion, the scientific blogging community has denounced those statements in the strongest manner and I don't know that there's any real purpose in continued flagellation.
The objection raised to Dr. Isis' post had to do with the tone and perceived intent to incite inflammatory responses from her readership, with the issue of whether she had first left a comment on Dr. J's original post being a minor component of the objection that was then inflated into a major point. (I am issuing a mea culpa here for contributing to that--I wasn't caught up on what has been happening in the blogosphere and didn't realize till about an hour ago that Dr. Isis had already written a post on this topic.)
The issue of how we handle disagreements, particularly those on highly-charged issues, within the blogging community is a completely legitimate one and any blogger has the right to his/her opinion on that topic. With respect, I don't think making snide remarks is a constructive way to carry on the discussion and is, based on my experience, rather unlike you.
Aurora--Hey, even fringe communities have their own rules and mores! :-) Thanks for visiting and commenting.
BASKETBALL SUCKS, LEARN TO PLAY RUGBY LIKE A CIVILISED NATION INSTEAD, MOFOS!!!!!11!!!
Oh, sorry, I mean "manners and etiquette have a cultural as well as a personal basis. The scientific blogging community is primarily American. Some of its members are not".
;)
Cath. I love rugby!! and agree that the US should play more of it. There are some of us that are really trying to make that happen.
And I agree with Tom, it would be nice to post in the comments that you are going to write about that post just in case that person doesn't read your blog. But like with most etiquette it's up to you.
I tend to agree with those who feel that trying to come up with some kind of "code of conduct" for something by its own nature as un-regulated as blogging, is likely to be a fruitless exercise at best.
But let me describe a closely related situation along the same lines. Suppose I read a comment here by some blogger (henceforth referred to as CE, for no particular reason). Suppose that there is absolutely nothing wrong with her comment, except for a boastful ending remark about posting it using some overpriced (if slick) piece of gadgetry.... as if that were relevant to the discussion...
How best should I take exception with such inflammatory behavior, clearly not conducive to an objective and serene exchange, especially if augmented by occasional derisory e-mails linking to newer and more captivating versions of said piece of gadgetry ?
Should I write a tirade (yet another) on that subject on my blog, warmly inviting blogger CE to read it by commenting here to that effect ? Or should I leave a comment to some random post on her blog, or maybe to all her posts ? Please help me with this netiquette dilemma...
Cath and Jennie--I have a labmate who plays rugby and, having seen some of her more colorful injuries, I must say I think rugby should pay more attention to manners and etiquette. I mean, players giving each other black eyes is just so rude! ;-)
Massimo--You're probably right that trying to regulate blogging is like herding cats. But then there are certain blogging rules that do seem to be generally accepted and followed--e.g., not posting comments that are simply self-promotional links to one's own blog, linking back to another blogger's post if it served as "inspiration" for one's own post, etc.--so it can happen when there's enough consensus within the community.
As for your intriguing problem with the mysterious blogger CE, I suggest you invite CE to read your tirade by commenting on all of CE's posts, as well as any other posts in the blogosphere on which CE has commented. This way, CE will be assured of the sincerity of your desire to have her read your tirade. Perhaps you could even send an e-card or text message on said slick piece of gadgetry! I am sure that, in return, CE will be greatly impressed by your dedication and feel immense gratitude for the effort you have made. :-)
Dear Massimo,
I feel that it is first important to ensure that you have not misunderstood the intent of the mysterious CE's comments and emails. Is it possible that they were intended not as derisory, inflammatory boasting, but rather as a genuine and sincere attempt to end a friend's suffering and show him the True Path of Light?
If you remain convinced of malicious intent, well, it is hard to advise you what to do. A lesser man might resort to censoring the comments made on his own blog, but surely you yourself would not resort to such tactics.
Perhaps you could console yourself with the thought that the high road is a hard road, and the last rebels against an evil empire have always had a target on their backs, even while others may secretly admire their brave stand against tyranny.
No? Well, just BUY. ONE. ALREADY.
Dear CE,
thank you for your thoughtful and constructive input.
Is it possible that they were intended not as derisory, inflammatory boasting, but rather as a genuine and sincere attempt to end a friend's suffering and show him the True Path of Light ?
Hmmm... now that's an interesting angle... I had not quite thought of that... you might have a point.... OK, whom am I kidding here: no, it was all about deriding -- totally.
A lesser man might resort to censoring the comments made on his own blog, but surely you yourself would not resort to such tactics
"Censoring" ? Oh no no, that is really not my style... I mean, I suppose if someone ever posted something truly ridiculous, such as, oh, I dunno, a comment consisting of nothing but rows of "iPhone ! iPhone ! iPhone !", then I might consider striking it out, but, really, who would ever do something so silly ? WHO ?
the high road is a hard road
Oh, and a lonely one it is... I mean, at the start one finds oneself surrounded by self-proclaimed devoted followers, all allegedly sharing the same ideals, but, as soon as the path becomes impervious, all of them abandon ship and take the side of the enemy ... I know so many of them... some of them are bloggers.
LOL!!!
Flame War!
Flame War!
Flame War!
Wait...if this gadget is the True Path of Light, does that make a certain Mr. Jobs god [scans sky for lightning bolts]???
This is awesome. THIS is why I blog.
Mad Hatter, I think it makes him Yoda
As in...iPhone or iPhone not, there is no try? :-)
My rule of thumb is that if you disagree with someone in your own post, you should link back to them in your own blog so that everyone can read both sides of the debate and decide for themselves. Anyway, that's what I do, and I disagree with people a LOT. :)
"Censoring" ? Oh no no, that is really not my style... I mean, I suppose if someone ever posted something truly ridiculous, such as, oh, I dunno, a comment consisting of nothing but rows of "iPhone ! iPhone ! iPhone !", then I might consider striking it out, but, really, who would ever do something so silly ? WHO ?
Dearest Moose (formerly known as Massimo),
I'm not one to resort to such childishness as rows of text advertising the greatest invention of modern times. No. Instead, I will merely suggest that, as a Mac advocate, it is only a matter of time before you succumb and join the dark side.
Oh, and the blogger known as "CE" sounds cool ... as only an iPhone owner can be.
Signed,
Another Supercool Blogger.
I do believe that the "iPhone! iPhone! iPhone!" comment was actually a response to the original act of censorship of a respected and supercool fellow blogger, who may or may not have commented on this thread.
At any rate, I liked some of the vadlo scientist cartoons!
Post a Comment