Response to Newsvine Prank

I don't want to come off as sound like this problem is completely insoluble, so some suggestions:

A few weeks ago on another article (I believe it was at the Newsvine Blog) the subject of additional categories came up. Let's assume some new categories are on the way.

Let me reiterate what I said then. Once those additional categories are in place, I think we should have an additional reporting option (or rather, an extension of one of the existing reporting options): Miscategorized. This is a site that depends heavily on user reports. At the same time, the current reporting scheme is very ham-fisted. You can vote the article up. Or you can vote to have the article pulled completely. The lack of middle ground makes it difficult at times to report in good conscience.

What I propose is that, once the categories are in place, user reports for Miscategorized should offer the option to select what the "correct" category is. Enough user reports suggesting the same category would "push" the article from one type to another (e.g. from News Event to Opinion, or News Event to Satire).

This would enable the community to categorize content as needed. Further, with this functionality in place, it would be easier for MSNBC to filter certain articles types. If MSNBC's "hard news" sections don't want Opinion, then you can just not feed opinion articles to them. If a user posts an article that's clearly opinion as an event, then the community has the option to "push" it to the Opinion category. If the Entertainment editor doesn't want satire, then a Satire category similarly offers a way to filter those articles, and the new reporting functionality allows the community the opportunity to ensure articles aren't miscategorized.

Is there a possibility for "pushing" articles when they don't really deserve it? Sure. Of course there is. But there's that possibility now , except that now articles are simply pulled from publication. This is quite a bit less damaging, IMO, and still offers correction by staff as needed.

Additionally, if something like this were implemented, the author should be noted when an article is "pushed," and should be able to appeal. This would work similarly to comment-deletion appeals, i.e. e-mail notification and appeal via e-mail. Newsvine should also have the ability to "fix" an article category if the appeal is granted.

Thanks. And like I said on the earlier thread, that one was free. But if you need an "ideas" guy, I have rates. E-mail for details. ;-P

Additional categories and community-driven re-categorization have been pushed by a number of Viners for a long time, at least a year if not two. Perhaps this event will finally spur some action?

The users involved in the prank posted articles in an intentional attempt to mislead.

Adding new categories and being able to push an article or seed to another category won't solve the problem if people can't tell when an article is intentionally misleading.

I manage Examples of the Justice System Gone Awry (God, I hate that title) and One Inch Punch. I've had one experience where a writer, well intentioned, mind you, kept posting material to one of my groups which was inappropriate. It took me all of 30 seconds a day to deal with it, and after it continued for a while, I sent what I hoped was a professional sounding email explaining why such content was inappropriate for that group, and politely asked the poster to stop. The poster responded with a polite email apologizing for the misunderstanding. Case closed. No inappropriate group content since.

It's not that difficult to police. Seriously.

With that said, I would relish additional news types, and I think a system for reclassifying content such as spiffie mentioned would be welcomed by the community, provided there was an appeal method for dealing with reclassifications which might be ideologically driven rather than community interest driven. Such a system would be a big improvement to Newsvine, IMO.

We've needed that for ages.

A Community category. One for satire. etc.

We already have a satire tag rule, which was deliberately broken by the authors. So if the authors won't use it, only community recategorization would help here.

I'd like to say I like that idea of additional news catagories for the articles and being able to report stories as in a incorrect catagory.

I agree with what you and Scott have said with just two exceptions;
1) What does this mean for the work on the COH revisions? One of the items up for discussion – at least raised by me – was how we should be tagging satire. If anything I think this demonstrates that we need to be consistent. I think the norm is tagging for satire and I'm fine with that. I think the COH actually says something more along the line of putting it in the headline.
As Dennis noted many of those involved are some of those who have been making helpful changes. Maybe we can try to use this situation for something good, namely more clear rules on this?

2) Meta stories stories used to be blocked from appearing on the front page, or at least on the columnists section, then a few months ago that was no longer the case. I personally think we need to return to that. By the time I logged onto newsvine today the pranks were over and so 2 or 3 of the six featured columnist pieces were about the "joke" as well as about half of the most popular discussions.
Is this what we want people to see when they come to the front page?

I'm not usually a fan of censorship but in this case I do think we need to return to saying stuff with a meta tag – which many of these are, imho, meta – shouldn't be appearing on the front.

I don't mean to sound stupid, but what are "meta pieces"? LOL I don't feel I should render a verdict if I don't know them well enough.

Meta is when a site talks about itself. So every story at Newsvine talking about how we should do things, how we actually do things, how we should regulate ourselves, etc - that's all meta.

Some communities try to balkanize meta conversations hoping that will lead to less meta debates (which seem to have a higher propensity for flame wars probably because it - how things are here - is the one issue we can all be passionate about) but others go for the 'let's keep it in the open" argument.

Both sides have merit.

But I definitely don't think someone coming to Newsvine for the first time yesterday or today would be impressed if they saw the front page filled with columnists talking about what happened with the pranks.

But I definitely don't think someone coming to Newsvine for the first time yesterday or today would be impressed if they saw the front page filled with columnists talking about what happened with the pranks.

Unless, of course, they read my hilarious article ;)

Calvin, please check your email for a pressing question about this issue.

Articles about the site, itself. Like this one.
:)

It's not that difficult to police. Seriously.

It really isn't. We've implemented an emailing system at Newsvine Election Coverage to combat inappropriate content. We use Google Documents to track who has received emails and keep a standard letter. Between the three of us, it's not a lot of work.

Thanks for the explanations of what meta is guys.

If these are lead seeders and they did admit it was just a prank and that they had no idea it would get so out of hand I would say that while an apology is in order...perhaps an apology letter on each of the seeders page and an apology to MSNBC as well for their mischaracterizations and jokes...I didn´t get to be privy of the goings on because often times I am not around since I work full time and perhaps I am glad that I wasn´t..but I wouldn´t ban them...perhaps a lecture and an apology formally online from them would do...if they learned a lesson perhaps it is something they won´t try to pull again.

It was in February of 2008.

Unbelievable. This whole affair wasn't worthy of extended debate back when it first hit my tracker, now.....its just plain silly to continue digging up old graves--as seems to be occurring at the tail end of this article's comments.

Calvin, you should probably close commentary on this piece...as its hard to imagine there is anything contemporary to be said about this matter that is truly relevant to your article. Let people engage in the eternal "NV fairness" debate in articles specific to the wronged parties and written in the appropriate era. They should simply reference this article via a link, similar to what we in the science biz call, "citing previous studies."

Calvin, you should probably close commentary on this piece.......its just plain silly to continue digging up old graves--as seems to be occurring at the tail end of this article's comments.

agreed.

Oh Hell No!

Make them fight to the death, so I can get my RAV, and we can move-on with our lives.

How about you just fight to the death by yourself.

We'll give the winner of that an ROV ;-P

I'll give it a try, but I don't really understand how it's gonna work.

How will I know when I've won?

How will I know when I've won?

Last man standing.

.

same as with many arguments on the vine ;-)

Okay, Here I go!

(this better work)

Watch the guy in the corner mike he doesn't fight fair!!!!!! lol

I NEVER trusted that guy!

He always dresses like me and mimics my dance moves.

Darn Copy Cat anyway!!

Shhhh! Larry...don't tell him it's a mirror.

I was under the impression that most members that violate the CoH are given at least a warning before they are booted, so I'm not sure if I see preferential treatment here.

I think it's difficult to say how things would've been had it been a group of twelve "nobodies". Had it *not* been prominent members, I doubt anyone would've even noticed.

3.2,

No, I think she just wants to hear officially what many people think is true - there is preferential treatment going on at Newsvine.

I'm okay with that as long as we acknowledge it.

Personally, as far as COH/UA is concerned, I heard from Emily via email that I was violating it by use of my former name "PrezObama" and that I am not supposed to impersonate anyone. Calvin changed it to "Prezo" and I requested him to change it "PrezO" and I'm cool with that. So, no they didn't kick me out.

There is, without a doubt, preferential treatment going on. I was disappointed with much of this whole fiasco, yet I still respect the offenders because I've seen how much they have contributed to the community. TJG, I'm sure you would get similar treatment because you are a regular contributer to the Vine.

No, I think she just wants to hear officially what many people think is true - there is preferential treatment going on at Newsvine.

Since the staff handles CoH/UA violations personally, it makes sense that they treat each case subjectively and holistically account for the contributions of the user/s in question.

You can call it "preferential treatment" if you want, but it makes sense to me that a user with a history of popular contributions that enhance the value of the community (can you really say otherwise of the so-called guilty parties in this case?) will be treated with a measure of impunity in matters of indiscretion.

I believe an apology would go farther then any sort of punishment.

You can call it "preferential treatment" if you want, but it makes sense to me that...

Would have more credibility coming from someone not complicit, Ryan my friend ;^)

No, I don't want anyone booted. But I think an official statement should do more than discuss MSNBC. I've been where you are, Dennis, as a longtime member of a community. But the second I was found to have been pranking people, by using HTML coding to prevent people from responding to a post, my account was gone. It was later reinstated by the site owner after I apologized to him and the other users for the pranking. I was also part of a group that used the site (legitimately) for a 'hidden' forum. When the hidden forum was leaked, there were huge repercussions that were the same as here--that a clique was using the site for its own fun and people felt used. I, like you, justified it and thought people were silly for being upset, but time, and now this prank have shown me I was wrong.

One of the reasons I have enjoyed Newsvine is because I thought it was better than that other site, that it was beyond the pranks I left there. I guess it is not. As I have said elsewhere, it's really (yours and winsome's) comments to those who are bothered by your prank, that have made it worse. You've pretty much told them that they are silly for feeling as they do.

One of the issues with this is that it WAS the "big guns" of the site who used their columns for this prank--people who have been spokespersons for the site. People who have the NV staff on their friends list. People who have achieved a RAV, which supposedly shows they are the ideals to strive to be. Perhaps I had it wrong above--perhaps those who have become the "top dogs" of the Vine should be held to a higher standard and not the same standard as others. Banning? No. But perhaps a suspension.

3.8

I believe an apology would go farther then any sort of punishment.

-----

I agree. So far all I've seen is insincere attempts and qualified apologies. Condescending remarks, saying that the rest of Newsvine is making a big deal out of nothing, it was only a joke, etc etc etc.

A simple unqualified apology would have prevented all this crap we have seen today on the front page.

You can call it "preferential treatment" if you want, but it makes sense to me that...

Would have more credibility coming from someone not complicit, Ryan my friend ;^)

And who among us is better qualified to expound upon the ins, outs and fairness of "preferential treatment" than the Hottest Newsviner? *exaggerated wink*

In all fairness, I knew no more yesterday morning than that there was a prank, and that Myk was working on some really boring-sounding article about Celestina and the election. (Don't tell him I said this, but I tuned him out pretty much every time he'd bring it up. I'm a bad girlfriend.)

When I heard he was gay, I was just as surprised as the rest of you--believe you me.

tsk, you're giving away which one I wrote! Nooo!

Dennis I think your reasons were valid but they had reprocussions that were greater than anticipated because of the underlying structures of legitimacy that drive social media.

I don't think that's your fault, but it was unfortunate. That said, while your reasons were valid so also are the reasons that people are upset.

At the end of the day we are, as I pointed out elsewhere, just random strangers on the internet. People generally distrust random strangers on the internet, and rightly so. We have some authority on matters of national import - at least from time to time - because, in some cases, we can say "I was there, I saw it."

Unfortunately, the prank articles were all fairly first person and all appealed to the absolute authority that comes from relating personal experience. We would have no reason to question those stories because they were - at their core - a personal testimony, ostensibly from people we trust (and please note the very intentional present tense of the verb "trust")

I don't mean to be overly dramatic here but it's the only example I have so I'm going to run with it and please forgive me for putting it out like this:

If, God forbid, there is ever another shooting on Virginia Tech's campus and I happen to have first hand information on it that can help frightened parents or keep students informed and safe then I want to be able to put it out on Newsvine and I want people to be able to trust me and trust that this community will not mislead them.

I don't want them to see my postings and the Newsvine banner and wonder if they can take my first hand accounts of what's going on seriously. I want the phrase "I was there. I saw it" to give the weight and gravitas necessary to keep people informed, safe, and secure.

tsk, you're giving away which one I wrote! Nooo!

That was kind of obvious once you guys explained what happened. I knew, Myk, you wouldn't miss an opportunity to mock us sheepish Obamites for the world :)

When I heard he was gay, I was just as surprised as the rest of you--believe you me.

I wasn't. I've been reading the subtext of Myk's "politics" for two years now. Don't let down your guard, Ryan.

That was so well said, kilfile.

Dear me, has my subtext been showing this whole time?

How embarrassing...

I wasn't. I've been reading the subtext of Myk's "politics" for two years now. Don't let down your guard, Ryan.

For the record, Myk is the straightest man I've ever known. Except maybe Calvin Tang--but that goes without saying.

The guy whose sexual orientation warrants the most scrutiny is clearly Cash.

Link included because he's also an attention whore.

I wholeheartedly second what Killfile said. It's pretty much what I was trying to relate with the article I wrote but I didn't do so quite as effectively.

I don't want them to see my postings and the Newsvine banner and wonder if they can take my first hand accounts of what's going on seriously. I want the phrase "I was there. I saw it" to give the weight and gravitas necessary to keep people informed, safe, and secure.

I've avoided chiming in on these many anti-joke threads until now, because frankly it's not that big an issue. This statement, though, finally prompted me to respond. Guys, this is the internet; people will claim to have firsthand knowledge of just about anything. Anything read online should be treated the same as anything read in the paper or seen on tv. If it's portrayed as fact, you give it the weight that it's earned by supporting its position with evidence. If it's portrayed as opinion, as most of the stories in question were, you file it away for future reference and move on.

"We are Drollhouse that is what we do." It was promised that something more will happen. I truly hope it does not.

If, God forbid, there is ever another shooting on Virginia Tech's campus and I happen to have first hand information on it that can help frightened parents or keep students informed and safe then I want to be able to put it out on Newsvine and I want people to be able to trust me and trust that this community will not mislead them.

Killfile:

I doubt you have anything to worry about. Keep on being you.

If, God forbid, there is ever another shooting on Virginia Tech's campus and I happen to have first hand information on it that can help frightened parents or keep students informed and safe then I want to be able to put it out on Newsvine and I want people to be able to trust me and trust that this community will not mislead them.

One of Lauren McCain's family members came to Killfile's column looking for information on April 16th. I was proud of the fact that she was able to find information as well as compassion on that thread.

I hope that the situation never repeats itself but if it should I want Newsvine to be a credible source. And I would think that the rest of the community would want that too.

I don't mean to be overly dramatic here but it's the only example I have so I'm going to run with it and please forgive me for putting it out like this:

If, God forbid, there is ever another shooting on Virginia Tech's campus and I happen to have first hand information on it that can help frightened parents or keep students informed and safe then I want to be able to put it out on Newsvine and I want people to be able to trust me and trust that this community will not mislead them.

Killfile, in my opinion you are absolutely being overly dramatic. Over the top.

I think you need to understand that many of the significant users at Newsvine have very different goals here than you. And a different vision of what Newsvine should be and is.

I find it a little boring when people start pulling the "citizen journalism" card. there is very little of that here. For many of us, we are looking for a fun place to discuss the news and share our views.

God bless the users that "try" and inject humor. There are far too many other that scream and preach and take thesmselves far too seriously (sort of like this comment by me).

It would be extremely unlikely, even inconceivable, that anyone would prank a shooting like that or pretend one. So no reader would find it difficult to trust such a story.

And 20 minutes later when the MSM corroborated your story you would still have the scoop and all the details.

Calvin,

Sure makes sense.

I'd rather some opt in program than trying to "save Newsvine" by confining satire and fun to the back corners of the Vine.

But that's just me

Killfile, in my opinion you are absolutely being overly dramatic. Over the top.

Spoken as someone who wasn't there and who wasn't using Killfile's column for up-to-the-minute information, much of which the "main stream media" didn't have because he was pulling it from numerous people on the ground.

I think you need to understand that many of the significant users at Newsvine have very different goals here than you. And a different vision of what Newsvine should be and is.

And I think that you need to understand that Killfile's goals and vision for what Newsvine should be and is are just as valid as those of the "many significant users" you cite. Calvin is right, there's nothing wrong with aiming for higher standards.

It would be extremely unlikely, even inconceivable, that anyone would prank a shooting like that or pretend one. So no reader would find it difficult to trust such a story.

And 20 minutes later when the MSM corroborated your story you would still have the scoop and all the details.

But if the site has no credibility whatsoever than people will not consider it a place to go for information. And if someone visited Newsvine today, after a day when the word "prank" was all over the front page, and saw an article about a school shooting that the MSM didn't know about yet, would they believe it?

A lot can happen in twenty minutes. In far less time Seung-Hui Cho took the lives of 30 Tech students and faculty and his own. Several people who found out about the Tech tragedy on Killfile's column were about to head out the door to the Tech campus and they didn't because of that reporting, dare I say that citizen journalism.

Some of us want more from Newsvine than we can get on similar sites. A little respect for that wouldn't hurt.

And I think that you need to understand that Killfile's goals and vision for what Newsvine should be and is are just as valid as those of the "many significant users" you cite. Calvin is right, there's nothing wrong with aiming for higher standards.

I never said his goal's aren't valid - they are - good luck to him.

But so are other people's goals and vision. And the history of NV has largely been people getting together and sharing opinions and talking the news. Period.

The VAST majority of NV has little to do with citizen journalism.

We're all responsible for our own brand.

You know who is also responsible for your brand? Or, at least, they have to take responsibility for your brand.

Calvin, Mike, et al.

Frankly, I'm not sure how the thought that Newsvine is now owned by a corporate entity, and that many of you have some degree of a real-life friendship with several people who are beholden to that entity, didn't cause you to consider that this joke might cause issues for those people.

I'm not sure if any of you remember my "Newsvine blanks the blank..." deal? It was essentially a pretty silly set of images based on suggestions by the community, and I hadn't actually finished posting all of them. Some were "Newsvine touches the children..." etc., and my wife keeps asking if I'm going to post the rest of them, and I'm just not comfortable presenting the Newsvine brand in that way anymore. Especially knowing that if I did, it would hit the front page.

Maybe it wouldn't even be a big deal, but even so, it crossed my mind immediately that it would be a bad idea. I'm not sure why the same thoughts didn't cross your minds. 12 collective minds, no less.

12 collective minds, no less.

Well, 12 people. Looking at the list of contributors, the number of minds might be smaller...

;)

This is a very interesting discussion, because it gets at the heart of a lot of issues for which I care very deeply, not the least of which is this question of citizen journalism vs. social networking.

Mr. Killfile said above...

3.16 I don't want them to see my postings and the Newsvine banner and wonder if they can take my first hand accounts of what's going on seriously. I want the phrase "I was there. I saw it" to give the weight and gravitas necessary to keep people informed, safe, and secure.

...to which Mr. Griff69 replied...

3.22 Guys, this is the internet; people will claim to have firsthand knowledge of just about anything. Anything read online should be treated the same as anything read in the paper or seen on tv. If it's portrayed as fact, you give it the weight that it's earned by supporting its position with evidence. If it's portrayed as opinion, as most of the stories in question were, you file it away for future reference and move on.

...and to which Mr. chill replied...

3.26 I find it a little boring when people start pulling the "citizen journalism" card. there is very little of that here. For many of us, we are looking for a fun place to discuss the news and share our views.

3.33 The VAST majority of NV has little to do with citizen journalism.

Social networking or citizen journalism? While I'd never suggest that Newsvine should be simply one or the other - and then offer a useless platitude about balance - you simply cannot have both in equal force. The question is, "Is Newsvine social-networking reinforced by citizen journalism or is it citizen journalism empowered by social-networking?" In this respect I must come down on the side of the latter.

Web 2.0 applications often operate from the imperative of organic development, which is fine until a given application begins to erode one of the pillars of Western society, in this case the free press. Do not underplay the added value of online media. We here, at Newsvine, are not simply coexisting with MSM; we are, along with millions of others, replacing it or modifying it beyond recognition. Organic development must be tempered with a constitutional framework, ie. a new and revised CoH and the like, so that those standards of journalism, news analysis and editorializing worth preserving are kept vital.

I've only been at Newsvine a short while, and I've found it to be an ingenious and enjoyable medium for publishing and/or republishing my writing, and I will gladly continue to do so. But it is very frustrating to spend two, three, even four days working on an article only to log in and find badly edited, often poorly researched work ascending to the front page on a wave of "discussion" that is just barely short of gossip and hearsay. Take that with a grain of salt, of course.

Things which we complain about as regards MSM are also apparent on Newsvine, and throughout American society, and I think these qualities are often, but not always, embodied by the gossipy, back-scratching environment common to social – networking sites like Facebook and MySpace and Hyves, where visibility is often more important than what is visible. We want the professional media to offer better fare, but continue to reinforce the demographic they're selling to with the goofy, prankster mentality that can often be read on Newsvine's front page. Why do we elevate such things? Why don't we ignore the bourgeois, the outrageous, and concentrate on substantive issues? Because the other stuff is fun, and because the overwhelming crush of information, of often bad news, of systemic disrespect engendered by the bitter culture war between so-called liberals and conservatives, can be thoroughly depressing.

Citizen journalism. Is Mr. Chill correct? Is there "very little of that here?" I'll not wager a guess. But I will say that free speech, especially in the context of new media, is not simply a right, but also an implied duty. You must become the citizen you see as worthy of the type of reportage you demand, and you must strive for the kind of writing you expect to read, and that is a very hard thing to do, and not very popular. There's nothing wrong with satire, with friendly conversation and the like, and indeed those are necessary to the ends of any community.

I'll say this: never before in human history has so much been at stake. We're facing myriad geopolitical crises, the likes of which have never been confronted before within the historical period. This situation is further confounded by the efforts of neo-nationalists and traditionalists, many within our Newsvine community, who wish to devolve the media - the lens through which we examine these crises - into a perceived, former state of patriotic complacency, or at least to so subjectify knowledge that every half-assed opinion or assertion has equal weight in the public sphere. Such should not be the case.

If you're not striving for the "high standards" Mr. Killfile and those like him are seen to embody, you should be, even if you're not as prolific. But this cannot happen if the social-networking aspect of Newsvine is seen as an end unto itself. We cannot simply "play journalist." We must strive to become journalists and news analysts and editorialists, and we must advocate journalism as the duty of all people.

But that's just my opinion.

I agree with Atticus.

I would like to see the Atticus School of Journalism established as an adjunct to Newsvine. Thank you, Atticus, for being a Port in a Storm, or better yet, a sea anchor with all its positive aspects of keeping the boat safe while allowing it certain freedom.

If you're not striving for the "high standards" Mr. Killfile and those like him are seen to embody, you should be, even if you're not as prolific. But this cannot happen if the social-networking aspect of Newsvine is seen as an end unto itself. We cannot simply "play journalist." We must strive to become journalists and news analysts and editorialists, and we must advocate journalism as the duty of all people.

Absolutely right, Atticus, thank you. Success is only ever assured in anything when all parts are speaking in harmony and with one voice. We cannot have ambiguity when we are reaching for crucial goals. Newsvine is either a 'fun' site, full of pranks and jokes, or it is a serious news and comment site, with a little fun thrown in as natural. But it cannot be both. Perhaps such an incident was necessary to re-establish the ethos, standards, goals and new direction in the light of its merger and increase in membership. It is for the community to define where it wishes to go now, professionally, after this and those in agreement with that defintion can then work towards that aim but those objectives and standards need to be clear to avoid any sense of bias.

I don't think anything else is possible if Newsvine is to be any kind of real success for itself or its members.

In the short time that Atticus has been with us (and thanks to OldFogey by helping to bring Atticus' rich wealth of knowledge and experience as a CJ as well as social commentator to a wider reach in NV), his insight in this particular event hits the nail on the head and is valuable.

We must strive to become journalists and news analysts and editorialists, and we must advocate journalism as the duty of all people.

Very true. All I would add to that is an essential ingredient in the equation so that it reaches the widest possible audience. A hook similar to those that the MSM has been using very effectively for years. And to really engage the community, that either has to be entertaining (in a broader sense rather than 'merely' fun) of challenging the reader to think beyond the norm. And it is for that reason why I do not agree with Ms C that...

Newsvine is either a 'fun' site, full of pranks and jokes, or it is a serious news and comment site, with a little fun thrown in as natural. But it cannot be both.

We have to find a way of Newsvine being both. And I do still maintain that the prank was designed to do that. It forced people to face taboos, break stereotypes and start talking about them. Yes, I do not underestimate the effect of people feeling duped and apparent trust being comromised. But that is what I see as a short term consequence of the prank. We haven't yet scratched the surface for some of the longer term benefits.

OK, it also means that Calvin and Mike have faced some testing times with MSNBC. No offense guys, but hey, that's comes with the territory:-)

Social networking or citizen journalism? While I'd never suggest that Newsvine should be simply one or the other - and then offer a useless platitude about balance - you simply cannot have both in equal force. The question is, "Is Newsvine social-networking reinforced by citizen journalism or is it citizen journalism empowered by social-networking?" In this respect I must come down on the side of the latter.

Excellent point, and I, too, come down on the latter.

If you're not striving for the "high standards" Mr. Killfile and those like him are seen to embody, you should be, even if you're not as prolific. But this cannot happen if the social-networking aspect of Newsvine is seen as an end unto itself. We cannot simply "play journalist." We must strive to become journalists and news analysts and editorialists, and we must advocate journalism as the duty of all people.

Sigh! Perfectly phrased.

We cannot simply "play journalist." We must strive to become journalists and news analysts and editorialists, and we must advocate journalism as the duty of all people.

I think that what may be called attitudinal leftism is a stumbling block. Conservatism has sort of monopolized all the concepts that encourages collaboration and continous effort. To a lot of leftists the Democratic party is just another Republican party, and defeatism or revolutionary tendencies is the answer. A very leftist, very radical activist, once said to me:

"That is the problem with the left wing. We never can get organized."

I tend to agree. There is this extreme notion out there, in the blogosphere, that you are cool if you drink a lot and brag about it, strut your stuff and espouse anarchist attitudes. It is sort of a slacking rebellion, a passive-agressive personality disorder mixed with severe distrust of hierarchy fused with poor work discipline and fuzzy thinking, leading to impractical planning and pipe dreams.

The amazing thing, to me, is that it is often impossible for people to recognize that someone displaying a complete opposite attitude can be anything but a Nazi in disguise. The whole concept of "changing the system from within" is compromised in advance by defeatism and the concept of "selling out" being thrown in the face of anybody who dares to work to achieve goals.

So far Killfile is the best example of someone with an unquestionable work ethic, a solid political agenda and an unwavering integrity. Many "salon revolutionaries" have no idea what it means to plan a demonstration, print and distribute flyers, or actively support a political campaign. Even that is boring, establishment, playing by the rules, accepting to quench the rebellious spirit of aimless rebellion.

Until Obama I tended to agree that Democrat or Republican was a question of being kicked by the shoe or the boot, but I admire his campaigning fervour and his message. It too is a product of a long, concerted effort. You may have your sceptiscism, but if you cannot be moved by a message like his, you must be made out of wood.

Back to citizens journalism. It is difficult work with significant risks and little hope of financial pay-off. It is pure idealism transformed into a product through consistent work efforts. If we, the people, are to succeed in a lofty aim like this, we have to replace some aslready archaic virtues of the establishment opposition, stealing back some fervor and dedication and discipline from the other side. Yes, at the risk of infection from work Nazis. But there is no other way to do it. There is just a bottomless fall, a roar and a thunder, and 10.000 years in Iraq.

Change comes from within. Like hope. Anybody out there got hope?

We want the professional media to offer better fare, but continue to reinforce the demographic they're selling to with the goofy, prankster mentality that can often be read on Newsvine's front page.

This situation is further confounded by the efforts of neo-nationalists and traditionalists, many within our Newsvine community, who wish to devolve the media - the lens through which we examine these crises - into a perceived, former state of patriotic complacency, or at least to so subjectify knowledge that every half-assed opinion or assertion has equal weight in the public sphere. Such should not be the case.

Atticus is a fine writer, and an asset to Newsvine. But here I have to disagree somewhat. Citizen Journalism is not the mainstream media, nor should we strive to be. The MSM has become too conservative and polite in it's approach to journalism. Why should we try to emulate it?

I contend that this prank has done nothing to detract from the journalistic integrity of Newsvine and is in keeping with the tradition of irreverant journalists of the past like Hunter S. Thompson, who despite his foibles was quite effective at cutting through the bull@!$%#.

Instead of worring about what the starched shirts in the corporate offices at MSNBC think, we should continue to forge ahead and create a new model for journalism, one which offers no apologies for offending anyone.

Remember, these the people who brought us Tim Russert and his part in the Valerie Plame affair and were among others too polite to ask the tough questions of the Bush administration. I for one don't need their validation.

They need us more than we need them.

As my grandpa would metaphorize, Claus, if Obama don't light your fire then your wood is wet.

Instead of worring about what the starched shirts in the corporate offices at MSNBC think, we should continue to forge ahead and create a new model for journalism, one which offers no apologies for offending anyone.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. The "starched shirts" (and more specifically, those who initially founded Newsvine) decide what is appropriate for Newsvine, and that's that. They happen to be more inclusive when it comes to soliciting ideas than a lot of people in similar positions might be, but I invite you continue to "forge ahead" along these lines and see how long you last as a participant on a site which you don't own or make the rules for.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to accept that I'm part of the establishment and live within the rules I agreed to when I signed up to be a part of it.

They need us more than we need them.

Ha. No.

I realized some time ago that if I left --and this goes for you and any other individual or small group of individuals as well -- no one would notice, and Newsvine wouldn't miss a beat.

The "starched shirts" (and more specifically, those who initially founded Newsvine) decide what is appropriate for Newsvine, and that's that.

I was referring to the handwringing over how this will be perceived by MSNBC. Newsvine consists of user-generated content. What makes it a viable and successful site is the users.

I realized some time ago that if I left --and this goes for you and any other individual or small group of individuals as well -- no one would notice, and Newsvine wouldn't miss a beat.

I'm not talking about as an individual, I meant collectively. Do you think that MSNBC would have purchased Newsvine if it didn't have value to them? The userbase, the community? The fact is that the traditional model of the mainstream media is a dinosaur and they bought Newsvine for access to new media and the audience that is loyal to it.

This is a far more interesting discussion than the damn prank.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. The "starched shirts" (and more specifically, those who initially founded Newsvine) decide what is appropriate for Newsvine, and that's that. They happen to be more inclusive when it comes to soliciting ideas than a lot of people in similar positions might be, but I invite you continue to "forge ahead" along these lines and see how long you last as a participant on a site which you don't own or make the rules for.

Nope. Brian I think this is where you and I will always disagree. The starched shirts at MSNBC didn't and I contend never could produce a place like NV. The brilliance of Calvin and Mike D is that they created an enabling platform (newsvine) rather than a prescription. They left that platform as open as possible within the constraints of freedom - by which I mean the culture and rules they developed were that individual contributors had wide scope so long as they respected others and made a positive contribution. Even things like tagging and categorising are more about helping people find what they're looking for than restricting writers.

They made what I call anarchy. They let people choose, and encouraged a society which was helpful and supportive. People CAN forge ahead and create their own vision of what Newsvine is, or what they want their corner of it to be. We live within the minimum rules of "do what thou wilt that it harm no other." Here's a tiny sample picked to show a little part of the range of approaches:

• Synthethis: wonderful well researched journalism. Citizen or not I don't care.
• Gideon Polya: A heartfelt cry against injustice racism and oppression.
• Lauhal: Quirky, funny, odd news stories
• Robin Warner: Trivia, poems, and meditative life and spirituality.
• Cash: Science mixed with hot chicks

There's no one idea. We're not all trying to be:

If you're not striving for the "high standards" Mr. Killfile and those like him are seen to embody, you should be, even if you're not as prolific.

Don't get me wrong KF is a huge asset to NV, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the site. The anarchic approach is far richer and more engaging than just being a place to go read news. I'm not saying the rules are there to be broken, I'm saying that freedom and your own vision of the place is what makes it strong. Remember "you see something which needs doing, you go make a solution?" That approach - grassroots and anarchic - gave us a lot of this site. It was possible because of the wisdom, restraint, and trust we got from the green people, and it was all about their hard work and ours, but it's not a single vision.

Don't get me wrong KF is a huge asset to NV, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the site. The anarchic approach is far richer and more engaging than just being a place to go read news.

I'm not suggesting that varied content isn't what Newsvine is built on. A glance at my own column will show you that. I don't think the Newsvine founders or even the brass at MSNBC would disagree with that. What I don't agree with, is that (in MOST cases -- Arena of Death being an exception, apparently) stepping outside the Code of Honor or the UA is the sort of anarchic practice that is acceptable.

I can't think of a single instance in which the staff (even pre-MSNBC) has ever welcomed behavior that steps on the UA or the CoH -- beyond pioneering new uses, new forms of content, etc -- or that said behavior has been deemed acceptable. And, ultimately, now that we're owned by MSNBC, it's possible that what used to bend will now break much more easily. And, whether you like it or not, we can't do anything about it.

If you want me to stand next to you and champion interesting uses of the group function, new styles of writing that push the limits of what we're used to seeing on Newsvine, I'll do that. In fact, I believe I've always done that -- via my own content and by encouraging others to do the same.

So, Cash is an asset -- yes. Because he works within the acceptable limits of sexual content on Newsvine. Hypothetically, as soon as he starts posting pornography though, under the guise that users should be able to deem what is acceptable, or with the excuse of pushing limits -- I'm going to start siding with the starched shirts.

Every person who has "given something" to Newsvine has done so within the established limits.

The brilliance of Calvin and Mike D is that they created an enabling platform (newsvine) rather than a prescription.

True -- but they sold that platform to the starched shirts.

That approach - grassroots and anarchic - gave us a lot of this site. It was possible because of the wisdom, restraint, and trust we got from the green people, and it was all about their hard work and ours, but it's not a single vision.

Quite well said, Djehuty. Part of the beauty and viability of Newsvine is that it is a platform which fosters creativity, and I believe a certain healthy irreverence towards traditional forms of media, from the user base.

If you want me to stand next to you and champion interesting uses of the group function, new styles of writing that push the limits of what we're used to seeing on Newsvine, I'll do that.

Right there with you both. Diversity is the source of creativity, and we need to maintain an organic principle of growth and development, rather than top managed assignments.

Every person who has "given something" to Newsvine has done so within the established limits.

I agree with Brian Ford. Every example of people trying to bypass the inherent order represented by the UA and the CoH has caused massive, collective frustration.

They made what I call anarchy.

See, this is where I have a problem with what may be the inherent, unspoken common ideological denominator inside the Drollhouse 12 support group. Anarchy is a good thing? The first rule of international politics is: The world order is anarchic. From this fact stems the majority of human suffering on earth, from violent conflict to abuse of power without accountability. Our relative safety in the democratic West is based on a fine tuned order of checks and balances to power, distributing life and safety and opportunity against the inherent anarchistic instinct of man.

Anarchy, as I see it, is free reigns for the strong, privileged and well organized, the oppression of anybody by anybody, civil war, untamed instinct and disregard for civilization. Lift the burden of abiding to laws, remove the institutions of education, cancel all contracts with policemen, and you have chaos. Or even suspend the CoH and the UA for 48 hours and see what this community will evolve into.

I have defended the Drollhouse prank against unreasonable and overblown charges, but I simply cannot place any confidence in a concept of an unregulated social order. If the prank was a product of that line of thinking I have to agree that it poses a threat. Not everyone is as naturally benign as you guys, Djehuty, and my theory is that you and I would not even be without the guidance and protection of laws and ethical rules - or we might be, but we would then be prey.

As we said in the old days: Just my 5 cents.

The "starched shirts" (and more specifically, those who initially founded Newsvine) decide what is appropriate for Newsvine, and that's that.

I'd actually argue the contrary.

A comapny, or most companies has a problem with this. They consider users and customers to be no more than a "$" or a number. Some vehicle for profits, and we are. However, you can't abuse or oppress your source of income lest it wither and die.

Newsvine, more so than many other websites have done a very good job in my opinion of keeping close tabs on user wants and needs as well as user requirements. They've done a much better job of separating them. This is part of the reason Newsvine is considered a circular site by me. It asks what we want and listens to us when we ask for something. Then it deliberates WITH us as to WHY and HOW after it has determined that it may be worthwhile. As a reslt we stay and generate content and revenue. Now, I'm not syaing the NV staff sees X$ attached to "Shawn Gordon", but I also understand that this aspect is at some point a factual part of the overall equation when it comes down to strict business too.

t asks what we want and listens to us when we ask for something. Then it deliberates WITH us as to WHY and HOW

And... I'm fairly certain that everyone will be very hard pressed to find another website that conducts itself n this fashion. Oh hell... just for poops and giggles.. I'll dare someone to find at least two more sites that do that on the same level.

The definition of anarchy - in the positive sense rather than meaning disorder - is a big topic, Claus. I've even written about my view of it at some length. But in the context of this discussion I'm not suggesting suspending the CoH or the UA. You missed out the most important bit of what I was saying in that regard:

They made what I call anarchy. They let people choose, and encouraged a society which was helpful and supportive.

And as I described "encouraged... helpful and supportive" was precisely the CoH and UA. Those two documents allow freedom by delineating respectful and positive behaviour from the sort of chaotic savagery with which you are correctly saying would damage the site.

Now I wasn't in my comment above referring to the prank. But since you bring it back to that....

• There is no Drollhouse 12 support group. Period. I only mention that because it's a common and problematic meme.
• Some of us, in particular myself and 3 others, are avowedly anarchists. I guess it's hard to imagine Winsome as anything else so let's say half the 12, or so. But that doesn't mean for a moment we want to throw away a requirement for ethical behaviour. Dennis is one and he started the anti-defamation thingy for a reason.
• I'm in a position where it's nearly impossible to defend the prank, because doing so would seem to take away from the "apology" and also inflame the stupidly longwinded debate. On Mykola's apology I mentioned the things for which I'm contrite, and in another universe I would do the prank but change those things.
• So with those changes why would I do the prank again? Because once in a while a society of any kind needs topsy turvy day for everyone's psychic health. That doesn't mean I want to tear down the kingdom.

We really should get discuss this over dinner one day, my friend :)

I'm not sure I'm an anarchist, I feel i have a duty to be provocative and without firm social structures to subvert I'd have to retool significantly.

So I'm married to what I attempt to affect and thus establishment, but obviously at one end of some bellcurve in terms of compliance to accepted social practice.

I'm not so much an anarchist as an individual with a clown licence.

But enough about me. What a ride the last few days online has been, Does anyone one else feel post-coital?

all empty and sticky and covered in bruises relaxed and happy? yes indeed.

They made what I call anarchy. They let people choose, and encouraged a society which was helpful and supportive.

Yea Djehuty, I guess it is a question of definitions. What I am kind of forced to object to is an innocent prank being elevated to a principle statement. As a prank I can understand it, defend it against accusation of viciousness and even appreciate its rogue charm, but as a principle statement it falls flat on its back. I am not offended at all, at least not emotionally. It offends my intellect, at the most.

And as I described "encouraged... helpful and supportive" was precisely the CoH and UA. Those two documents allow freedom by delineating respectful and positive behaviour from the sort of chaotic savagery with which you are correctly saying would damage the site.

I see that. No need for knitpicking, but those documents kind of discourages featured elements in the prank. Sorry if I come of sanctimonous and all that, but it just seems like an inconsistency.

We really should get discuss this over dinner one day, my friend :)

Sure thing. I enjoyed meeting you in London. I may disagree with you yet, but I will fight to the death for your right to be wrong ;)

but those documents kind of discourages featured elements in the prank

Yes. I'm not walking away from that. I'd evoke the "harmless fun" defence except that it's clearly turned out not to be harmless.

As to the "principles" defence - look a gag that was intended to be harmless fun can have a serious point, a bit like throwing a pie in the face of Bill Gates might be a prank designed to make a point. You could talk about how there's a difference between that happening once and the breakdown of society if it happened every day. But this has turned out a little like trying that and having him end up in hospital for eye surgery.

And that's why I examined all the places I thought I did it wrong. Should the pie have been made of custard instead of gravel? Eureka!!

I don't want to strip away anyones fun... but um... what if we reworked the leaderboard as a means of perhaps progressing the level of detail it offered and help reduce the backlash of events like this in the future?

Every person who has "given something" to Newsvine has done so within the established limits.

The brilliance of Calvin and Mike D is that they created an enabling platform (newsvine) rather than a prescription.

True -- but they sold that platform to the starched shirts.

I couldn't agree more, Brian. I think that's a main point some people are missing: That no matter how innovative or 'anarchic' we might wish to be, we have a new master/partner now. We might not like the idea, but it is de facto, and that limits our actions, rightly or wrongly.

Great comments, too, Claus, thank you.

For all those who doubt that corporations can buy something without having the desire nor the need to maintain the original spirit of the acquisition, you all might want to research the story behind "Famous Amos" cookies and its corporate sale.

If the suits at MSNBC had any doubt about their decision to acquire Newsvine viz-a-vie any adverse long term effects of the prank, this excellent discussion has moved on to a totally different plane now. To leave them with no doubt about their investment and how they are getting RoI far beyond their wildest dreams. Yes, it is journalisitic anarchy (as per Djehuty's definition) of the highest order.

"encouraged... helpful and supportive" was precisely the CoH and UA.

We already have what I have always understood to be an acceptable description of what Djehuty means in the current CoH and UA. We call it collaborative discovery.

Kudos guys - this community is unparalled for what it can do. Any doubters out there still think this is Digg? Or some offshoot of the MSM with just citizen journalism with social commentators? It's a community with attitude and personality. MSNBC better work hard to hold on to its newest and most valuable asset:-)

Any doubters out there still think this is Digg? Or some offshoot of the MSM with just citizen journalism with social commentators? It's a community with attitude and personality. MSNBC better work hard to hold on to its newest and most valuable asset:-)

Right on, Raat. Well said! :o)

May community spirit win, Raat.

Thanks to two of my favourite commentators.

Where there is will, a way can be found. This community has passion and will in abundance! Anyone who hasn't noticed that is not listening, observing or watching:-)

What a wonderful discussion. This is a hard case, this, the space between the incentive to post (fun) and the reason to post (duty), represented roughly by social networking and citizen journalism respectively. Now, that's a generalization, and there's a lot of nuance that isn't addressed by that, but…

Comments below…

Mr. oldfogey said…

#3.39 I would like to see the Atticus School of Journalism established as an adjunct to Newsvine. Thank you, Atticus, for being a Port in a Storm…

Thank you, sir, for the kind words. I should mention that I'm more a news analyst and media-writer than a journalist, though I, like most people here, am capable of random acts of journalism, as I think most people with a basic education are.

The Atticus School of Journalism would probably be best summarized as the Kovach and Rosentiel School of journalism, whose book I mentioned in the thread about a new CoH. Their nine elements of journalism would make an excellent adjunct to this website. You can read these, and more about the book, here.

Ms. Cyprah said…

#3.40 Newsvine is either a 'fun' site, full of pranks and jokes, or it is a serious news and comment site, with a little fun thrown in as natural. But it cannot be both.

…and Mr. Raani said…

#3.41…to really engage the community, that either has to be entertaining (in a broader sense rather than 'merely' fun) of challenging the reader to think beyond the norm.

I agree with the notion that Newsvine should be entertaining, but any NPR- or CSPAN- or ex-CNN-junkie (who remembers when CNN was good) can attest that straight news and news analysis can be very entertaining. I wouldn't begin to argue questions of marketing, of obtaining the broadest audience. But there's a difference between entertainment and info-tainment. As much as I enjoy being entertained, I think many – though not all – of those articles that often make it to the top are either sensational, emotionally charged and/or Facebook-esque banter that would be better suited to Facebook. I don't know that such should be regulated, but it shouldn't be embellished by we, the community.

And Mr. Jacobsen, at 3.43 (and kudos to you, sir, for you using your real name, I think).

I must admit, while your response is articulate, I'm not certain how it pertains to the quote you posted. My guess is that the quote…

We cannot simply "play journalist." Etc…

…is somehow indicative of "attitudinal leftism," or has something otherwise to do with "attitudinal leftism." Very interesting term, but however it is used in this case, I don't believe in the left/right dichotomy. From my perspective, it's just another substitute for the good/evil dichotomy that often ruled yesteryear.

Now, I'm a bit of a hypocrite. I've used these words thousands of times, often out of necessity, because I'm typically excluded from conversations when I refuse to use the vernacular.

That said, the real problem, if any, in the public forum of journalism, "citizen" or otherwise, is "attitudinal" laziness. We call people some derivative of right or left simply because we don't have the time, inclination or inspiration to find the words to describe what each and every person is really saying, and because, more often than not, we define ourselves not by what we are, but by what other people are not.

I dare you, or anyone else, to try and spend a month on Newsvine without using these damnable terms, which have hindered public discourse for far too long. Hell, if anyone can give us a definitive definition (and I mean watertight), I'd be impressed. But I warn you, it's like trying to define good/evil. Any honest person will get so caught up in the nuance of each word, you'll find that nuance is all there is to them.

Of course, when you begin your left/right-free month, try not to go to my column and see titles like, "Don't Take Chocolate from the Right-Wing Media."

I will say, Mr. Jacobsen, that I am often as frustrated with so-called lefty mystics and cultural relativists as I am so-called right-wingers. I don't go after them simply because they don't go for the jugular as often, and tend to be more civilized in their criticisms. It's not ideology that sets me off; it's rudeness.

Mr. Infohack said

#3.44 Atticus is a fine writer, and an asset to Newsvine.

Thank you, sir, for your kind words.

But here I have to disagree somewhat. Citizen Journalism is not the mainstream media, nor should we strive to be. The MSM has become too conservative and polite in it's approach to journalism. Why should we try to emulate it?

Well, I never said that we should emulate MSM, although I do advocate restraint and manners. What I said was…

We here, at Newsvine, are not simply coexisting with MSM; we are, along with millions of others, replacing it or modifying it beyond recognition….We want the professional media to offer better fare, but continue to reinforce the demographic they're selling to

However, your comments are very engaging, and I do identify with many of them. I'd add that I think it is possible to be polite and exercise restraint while, at the same time, being terrifyingly efficient at "cutting through the bull@!$%#." This is simply a discipline in diffusing bad or undisciplined rhetoric, something many people are not so good at, but something that is empowered by a forum where you can't be "shouted down," as on deplorable, rank broadcasting like Fox News, which, if slander laws were more stringent and better enforced, would never be able to exist for all the fines and lawsuits.

Mr. Djehuty said…

#3.48 The anarchic approach is far richer and more engaging than just being a place to go read news.

I'd hardly describe it as "anarchy," a very oft-used word, these days. Rather, in my opinion, Newsvine operates via "elegant organization," something a far cry from anarchy, unless the word's definition is radically enhanced to fit the bill. The key to Newsvine is that it's a participatory system, something Western Democracies are supposed to be but are often not.

Nor do I mean to contend that Mr. Killfile is the end-all of Newsvine, rather, that he has set very high standards for himself, and I think that's a goal to be emulated. I could find dozens of comments from him that I don't agree with. I just never do.

Mr. Jacobsen then said…

#3.51 The world order is anarchic. From this fact stems the majority of human suffering on earth, from violent conflict to abuse of power without accountability. Our relative safety in the democratic West is based on a fine tuned order of checks and balances to power, distributing life and safety and opportunity against the inherent anarchistic instinct of man.

Here, here, Mr. Jacobsen! They keep using that word [anarchy]; I don't think it means what they think it means.

And Mr. Jacobsen, at 3.43 (and kudos to you, sir, for you using your real name, I think).

My real name indeed. And koudos to you for using yours (or...)

I must admit, while your response is articulate, I'm not certain how it pertains to the quote you posted. My guess is that the quote…

We cannot simply "play journalist." Etc…

…is somehow indicative of "attitudinal leftism," or has something otherwise to do with "attitudinal leftism."

Nope, I agree with the one I quoted.

Very interesting term, but however it is used in this case, I don't believe in the left/right dichotomy. From my perspective, it's just another substitute for the good/evil dichotomy that often ruled yesteryear.

Very interesting concept, but I do not think it holds water. I am by no means saying that left (or right) is good or evil. I usually criticize the right wing more than I do the left wing, perhaps because the right wing is in power, perhaps because I am a Scandinavian and as such tend to be more leftist than the average American, perhaps because I am just left-leaning. In this case I chastise the left wing for favouring certain impractical attitudes.

I will say, Mr. Jacobsen, that I am often as frustrated with so-called lefty mystics and cultural relativists as I am so-called right-wingers. I don't go after them simply because they don't go for the jugular as often, and tend to be more civilized in their criticisms. It's not ideology that sets me off; it's rudeness.

Well, I was motivated by insult or fury or frustration. I do have other motivations than whatever sets me off at one point or another.

They keep using that word [anarchy]; I don't think it means what they think it means.

I guess it helps if you have been there and seen what it does to people. I think it is an idealistic belief in a self-regulating society. But in all fairness, Djehuty did acknowledge the importance of the UA and the CoH. The core of the matter is to realize that any type of community is based on a social pact that diminishes individual freedom for the sake of relative safety (Hobbes).

The discussion relates to the nature and extend of the indvidual sacrifice required to make for an ideal society. In this case the "powers that be" have issued that the CoH must be interpreted according to a purpose that involves some level of credibility. They have stated that improperly tagged satire as well as identity swapping as well as meta-articles published to "all of Newsvine" contradicts this overall purpose.

Where does this leave us? We can accept the "State of the Community Address" or we can rebel it, but the overall purpose has been clearly defined. It would be too drastic to say that citizens journalism has defeated its opponents, but citizens journalism virtues (credibility, accuracy, "serious content") are, at least, elevated above fun and games. The credibility/prank ratio has been defined to something closer to 80/20 than 50/50 or "worse", depending on POV.

I know that there are those out there dreading the MSNBC influence, while others see it as a grand opportunity, hoping perhaps to be able to harvest individual rewards from it. I know there are people who mourn the perceived loss of a "fun community" in favour of a "credibility oriented" news commenting or even news reporting site. I also sense that there is a somewhat fierce oppostion to applying method to the journalistic efforts, which will probably define the quality of actual "acts of journalism" and do more to hamper the development of the desired credibility than the pro-prank attitudes.

Atticus,

In case Djehuty is reluctant to plug his stuff on Calvin's column, let me do it for him. Have a look at his dream of anarchy. It may help explain where he is coming from.

oth:

Methinks this column, those of the other staff, and the NV Blog cyborg all show good examples of this. Access to the corporate governance of newsvine is really easy, and participating in chats about features requests, CoH issues, and bugs is usually the norm.

Mr. Jacobsen kindly and extensively responded to my extensive response...

#3.67 Very interesting concept, but I do not think it holds water.

Perhaps it doesn't. But I have to stick with what I've learned, limited though they may be. I spent years attempting to parse the concepts of left and right into something meaningful, but I kept running into evidences that contradicted everything I came to believe. One day, in frustration, I joked with myself that maybe left and right are simply fictions, words we use to divide ourselves from others. The more I though about it, the more it made sense.

You mentioned Nazis above. By many accounts, Nazism is a far-right ideology. But then you've got these "right-wingers" saying, no, they're what happens when nationalism and socialism are applied to nefarious ends, and that Nazism is decidedly "leftist" because if it's a centrally controlled, heavily regulated, all-encompassing, statist ideology, it follows that it must be leftist. But then those same right-wingers don't even blink when their heroes, Reagan and Bush Jr. and their ilk, promise smaller government and then proceed to make government ever larger at the cost of social-welfare programs and to the benefit of the rich, and then create a defacto extension of government powers to corporations, which are "incorporated" into the functions of government to supposedly civil ends.

If you're standing on a circular path, and you go left or right, you're going to end up in the same place in the end; a faith-cult, firmly committed either to power or to pacifism, and often unwilling to deal with the very practical matters at hand.

At #3.69, Mr. Raani kindly referred me to Mr. Djehuty's article on anarchism. I read it, and I've a few responses...

Anarchy, to me, is about choosing complete personal autonomy.

...and...

Instead politics runs on bribery ideology (religion; nationalism; hope of advancement; or "truth, justice, and the American way"), and the threat rather than the actuality of physical sanction — with the last backed up by just enough reality to keep people properly frightened.

But this IS a kind of anarchy, organized either illegally or extralegally by people occupying positions of authority, who are supposed to be held accountable but almost never are. You'd be hard pressed to classify what is being done within the U.S. intelligence community as something other than "anarchy" - actions committed without regards to the Constitution or public accountability. The military-industrial complex is an anarchic system, operating above the law, above oversight, and is peopled by those who have assumed "personal autonomy" from consequences, and to the detriment of people who must exist within the law.

The problem, as I see it, is secrecy, and a consequent inability of citizens to participate in government.

So my dream is of a future where authority is neither needed, to compel people to care for one another, nor accepted, by a people who have individual self possession and the ability to love unselfishly. Systematic political rule-based solutions are not required because problems are solved according to the particular needs of each situation.

This is a noble vision, but it's a solution to a problem that is, in part, imagined. The difficulty is not authority, but illegitimate authority, operating outside the boundaries of the public domain.

In the context of our discussion, Newsvine works because there are rules, and those rules appeal not only to our freedoms but to our duties as free people. Additionally, there are implied principles that most of us voluntarily adopt, and the community tends to police itself. Perhaps that has correlations to anarchy, but it isn't anarchism.

Atticus I can see that I *will* have to stop using the word anarchy. "Anarchism" itself is too broad a term and when the results of that happen to overlap with a word meaning disorder... But I don't have a better one right now.

I don't want to carry this discussion outside the bounds of the prank, but

but it's a solution to a problem that is, in part, imagined. The difficulty is not authority, but illegitimate authority, operating outside the boundaries of the public domain.

I do think that is a matter for debate. For example, how can any limit on the (peaceful, positive) exercise of my free will be legitimate? Depends how you define peaceful and positive, I guess.

Chomsky said, very characteristically simply so it stuck with me, that authority is by definition illegitimate.

I'm just hopeless, Myk. I react so negatively to slogans aphorisms that even when they come from a guy I respect (both you and Chomsky, lol) I find myself suspicious of them. It's a sickness, really ;)

Oh, it's fair enough, Djehuty. I wouldn't expect anyone to accept that idea just because it's easy to remember. Rather, I find that the "slogan" for lack of a better term is simply a concise explanation of his view. He obviously has a far more nuanced set of opinions than could possibly be communicated in a throw-away phrase.

Still I find that it sums up the justification for anarchy in a not-entirely-trivial way. Yeah?

Or libertarianism. I didn't mean it wasn't useful, but I distrust things which obscure context and nuance even if I agree with them - and I do agree with this, mostly.

Mr. Djehuty said...

I do think that is a matter for debate. For example, how can any limit on the (peaceful, positive) exercise of my free will be legitimate? Depends how you define peaceful and positive, I guess.

Yeah, it does sort of depend on how you define a given word, and it is, indeed, a matter for debate. I should have posted that bit on your thread, but by the time this occurred to me it was too late. Sorry.

So far as anarchy as an ethos, I DO get what you're saying, and I respect your attempt to define the basis for your beliefs.

...and Mr. Tang said...

Atticus Mullikin = added to watchlist. Welcome to Newsvine.

Cheers, sir.

This is for me an ongoing process of considering and defining ideas. For that reason thoughtful criticism is especially valuable, and I thank you for it. And Claus, too, but he knows that.

Djehuty, Myk and other "anarchists" out there, two words: Hobbes, Leviathan. Or: Social Contract. People who form societies give up individual freedom for the benefit of relative safety in a community. Don't you guys have family? Dhehuty, I know you got a woman, and if Myk can give up enough of his freedom to roam, you have also publicly announced a merger. It's the same thing, guys, on micro-scale. Be honest: There are privileges, but you cannot do anything you please. You wish to do other things at time, but maintaining that particular social bond takes precedent.

If you fail to see or to admit this small thing, I refuse to say one more word on this particular matter to you, because I know you are bull@!$%#ting me.

People who form societies give up individual freedom for the benefit of relative safety in a community

.
I fully admit it. we made the place unsafer. That showed a certain amount of disrespect. These things are not debatable. [to me]

This is not a defense , this is just a statement, "that was then."

Hobbes, Leviathan

Sorry, but this is not the last word on it. Nor can you pull "you MUST agree because it's blindingly obvious". Let me take the example you gave: a bond between two sexual partners. One approach, the most benign version of Hobbes I can come up with (he advocated despotism, don't forget), is to see it as both partners giving up some freedom so as to feel secure in both the loyalty and continuing support of the other. I don't go bonking person X so that my partner won't go bonking person Y. So we can both support our children. That looks at it as a loss of freedom in return for a collective and thus personal good which could not otherwise be guaranteed.

Here's another way to think of it. My own feelings and my care and love for my partner, along with my recognition of her needs guarantee my ongoing support for her. That's no loss of autonomy, it's just my choice. There's no contract, no limitation of freedom, and on the surface no security. My feelings could change at any moment, right? But in practice we're exactly as secure as the couple next door who signed the marriage contract. I think you know my partner and I are not formally married although we've been together for a long time and have children. Perhaps that gives up the illusion of security. I feel I gain from it.

Winesome, it is done and over with, the whole prank discussion. This is just a spin-off about theoretical anarchy, idealistic anarchism, or whatever you may call it. I got no quibble, and the Brokeback thing... that was stupid, man. Too much sarcasm in that cocktail too. I just thought it might be funny, because you can launch something like that out of the blue.

Djehuty, I can understand where you are coming from. All I say is that there is a trade-off, and there is a pact. The sexual metaphor is a very obvious choice, but also far from the only compromise. It comes down to a number of choices and priorities, and at any given point when you are faced with such a choice, there is a risk that the wrong choice will be so grievous to the partner that it is a deal-breaker.

I do not want to subtract from the love and emotional bond you share, you know. I'm uncomfortable being this personal in public, but it is all just a theoretical example. You can say that you are motivated by love, but then love becomes the object, the thing that you want to keep. The other sacrifices, you may say, do not exist, because love makes them go away. That may be true in the case of sex, but is it also true in the case of every other thing. Do you never ever feel a sting, because you have to let go of something in order to safeguard the relationship, take care of the children, spend quality time, and so forth?

Soccer games? Poker night? Newsvine?

I was over it before this even went down,before i even posted it. i wrote my piece the day before, congratulated myself and that was that.

Really.

The other sacrifices, you may say, do not exist, because love makes them go away.

No, I don't say that. Life is full of tradeoffs and choices. But when it's my choice I take responsibility for it, and when it's imposed that autonomy is replaced by child-like acceptance or perhaps petulance. I can, from that point of view, enter into a contract (doing so being the choice) but it's always limiting to do so. It replaces what I think of as grassroots. Say I signed something agreeing to give up poker nights because it would make my partner unhappy for me to go to them, and we freely agree to this. Perhaps in return for her cooking my favourite dessert each thursday night. [PS I don't play poker, but let's say...] Then her free gift of dessert, and my free gift of time spent with her is somehow demeaned. It becomes instead duty and trade.

As an aside: many years ago I happened to look into Hindu ethics. I'm a little vague now, but it seems to me that sila (duty) is the least expression of virtue. It applies, at its worst, without head or heart. When replaced by love action is creative, flexible, and wholehearted - even when there is a tradeoff or cost. I think this concept *does* apply also to political systems.

When replaced by love action is creative, flexible, and wholehearted - even when there is a tradeoff or cost. I think this concept *does* apply also to political systems.

*chuckle*

I know you are not a crazed radical reading the Anarchist Cookbook and watching Manson videos in an underground bunker in Tasmania, Djehuty. You are an idealistic anarchist, or something like that, a platinum record and a couple of round steel frame glasses away from being John Lennon. Perhaps you will succeed in rebranding the term anarchism :)

What I meant by the comparison was that it is mankind's inherent propensity for violence that facilities or, perhaps, necessitates the transaction of freedoms for safeties. At least according to Hobbes, who also admits that hegemony develops into a monstrosity, hence the name Leviathan.

In a more modern analysis it also has to do with division of labour, the complexity of production systems, and the privileges derived from those principles, which all in all requires a bloated administration.

Relative anarchy, or self-regulating tranquility, works best in small closed environments. Growth is a threat, because hierarchy grows proportionally, developing hegemony, and other tribes are threats. A tribe may be very peaceful and harmonious, but the invasion of another, more martial culture developed under harsher conditions, will ultimately destroy the peaceful tribe.

But, who knows: In some distant future people like you may be the average person, while bar brawlers have made themselves extinct. Civilization certainly points in that direction, and one day a deer may be a more popular totem than a lion. I don't see that as completely impossible. One problem is that the aggressive male will try to stir up trouble to justify his evolutionary survival as a stereotype.

As long as martial cultures strive to dominate cultures on both sides of a gap, geographical or cultural or religious or ideological, there will be conflict, and conflict favours the selection of aggressive males. That is why women prefer bad boys, at least some of the women some of the time. They secure that combative genes are passed down, increasing the war time survival of the tribe. Fortunately some women also consider peace time survival, which favours the cute and the intelligent and the well tempered guys.

Okay, enough Dr. National Geographic from me. Let me know when we discuss this over dinner :)

"You may say, 'I'm a dreamer' ..." -- kind of a setup really, lol. Yeah, you'll note that the article of mine Raat kindly references above is clear that we're not ready, yet, and how we might change to be ready... but let's talk over dinner. Just invent a teleporter, eh? I'm working on it as we speak.

Oh and I'm willing to argue, some time, that there's a way of channelling Cernunnous and Jesus simultaneously, and getting thereby getting the girls ;)

It is fascinating how a question by TJG to Calvin about some kind of penalty to the 'dirty dozen' moved to something that is really at the heart of why most of us are here. There were some golden nuggets in the earlier part that spurred the discussion towards what transpired. I am anxious that we do not lose them so copying them here with added emphasis...

Infohack @ #3.44 - Do you think that MSNBC would have purchased Newsvine if it didn't have value to them? The userbase, the community? The fact is that the traditional model of the mainstream media is a dinosaur and they bought Newsvine for access to new media and the audience that is loyal to it.

Djehuty @ #3.48 - The brilliance of Calvin and Mike D is that they created an enabling platform (newsvine) rather than a prescription. They left that platform as open as possible within the constraints of freedom - by which I mean the culture and rules they developed were that individual contributors had wide scope so long as they respected others and made a positive contribution.

Claus @ 3.51 - Diversity is the source of creativity, and we need to maintain an organic principle of growth and development, rather than top managed assignments.

The discussion here really does take this article to some kind of nirvana for me. Clipped.

The discussion here really does take this article to some kind of nirvana for me

Which tends to support the idea that Drollhouse-gate, rather than merely a sophomoric prank, has actually added value to the community by serving as a stepping-off point for a discussion of whether Newsvine is a social network or a citizen journalism outlet.

Whether that was the intended goal or not, the incident has succeeded in fostering a timely and important debate about what Newsvine is to each of us and where we want to take it in the future.

/ amicus brief ;)

...I'd like to reiterate once more for the record that the only reason I had for participating was that I thought it would be kinda funny. I never even thought about the ramifications or implications, not even once. So while I'd like to take credit for any ensuing insights, that would be a complete lie.

;)

Myk, I hope you can get some kind of credit for it, anyhow. It will probably not be untainted, but one thing that I have been "regretful" about (no, I was not "in on it") is that several of you have expressed concern that your credibility or opportunity with the powers that be have been hampered.

I don't think it's the case, not in the long run. Opportunity and reward are given for talent, effort and results, and the rest is gossip in the coffee corner for a while, and then water under the bridge.

(I love contaminating metaphors, and this one in particular)

Which tends to support the idea that Drollhouse-gate, rather than merely a sophomoric prank, has actually added value to the community by serving as a stepping-off point for a discussion of whether Newsvine is a social network or a citizen journalism outlet.

I'd like to drop the discussion about the prank as much as the next guy, but: An article about whether Newsvine is a Social Network or a CJ Outlet would have served the same purpose, without the 3 days of problematic in-fighting, spread out across 30 some meta articles, with people from just about every angle of the argument being a part of the problem, rather than part of a productive (or at least semi-contained) discussion.

With that said, I don't know of anyone in an official capacity who has said or anywhere in any official description of Newsvine where it is written that Newsvine is a "Citizen Journalism" website.

In general, I hear that most from people who aren't happy that there isn't more of it (CJ) here. With that said, I think there is a lot of good CJ coming out of Newsvine, but I wouldn't be here after two years if the focus was limited to such a narrow view of social-media.

"Social Network" is far too general a term, as it applies to any online community in which people can get together, create groups, friend other members of the community, etc.

So, I guess I would say that my answer would be that it's a little of both (and more) but that the focus isn't officially on either.

# NV pays close attention to what users want and need
# NV asks users what they want
# NV listens to users when they ask for something
# NV deliberates with users about the WHY and HOW after it determines what features should be implemented

yes. go look at the archives of the newsvine blog. enjoy.

An article about whether Newsvine is a Social Network or a CJ Outlet would have served the same purpose

Same purpose, but not same effectiveness. We have quite a bit of history on the latter.

Nice to stop by and see some old friends... Hello winsomecowboy my favorite clown... smile :-)

No pranks from me, just friendly sarcasm....

According to the UA, the user agrees to not:
attempt to disguise the origin of any User Content transmitted to the Site;
or
create and/or log in with multiple accounts;

So it violates at least the spirit of the UA and IMO the letter of the UA.

While that's true, and I'm not discounting the warning by saying this - we could have achieved the same effect by mailing the articles to each other and doing our own posting. Same with comments. Because this hoax was done with consent. So it may violate the letter of the "disguise the origin" UA but it does not to me violate it's spirit.

If I were to disavow responsibility for something my hoaxer posted in my name that would be different.

Djehuty:

we could have achieved the same effect by mailing the articles to each other and doing our own posting.

Which is what anyone with the I.Q. of a pile of used bricks at a demolition site would've done, because it would no doubt have taken the most psychically dangerous parts out.

Think Viki would've posted that as you wrote it if she'd seen it beforehand? Would you have let that rabbit image go?

Yes. I said I took responsibility for what was posted on my column. And I did not write Viki's column, but she would have done the same because she does do the same - take responsibility for what she allowed to be done in her name. She, like me, had the opportunity all day to log in as herself, delete or edit the article, and change her password. She did not do that.

You're an expert at talking *for* people Jack but I object to being told I have the IQ of a pile of bricks. Perhaps you might reconsider your tone.

Djehuty:

I don't know how I talked "for" you, but if your "Yes" was to the picture that went out under your column, then I take you at your word.

Frankly, in this case I think the tone was justified, and it's not the tone I adopted in the other comments on this thread. It's justified in this case because, I mean really, come on--with feelings running this high and the consequences so potentially disrupting for the NV/MSNBC relationship, you want to nitpick about getting tagged with a violation?

One of my longstanding complaints about the application of the CoH/ToS for beta/OV users is that whenever the letter is violated the spirit is invoked and whenever the spirit is violated the letter is invoked.

That's one of the reasons I'm anxious for the new CoH.

*nudge*

I don't know how I talked "for" you

You told me what "anyone [snip]" would have done. You told me what Viki and I would have done if she had control of her column (which, as I proved to you, we did).

Feelings are running high because so many people have chosen to be offended. There was no (or perhaps in a couple of cases "little") cause for offence. People chose to react in a hysterical and unbalanced way, from my point of view.

I have to go now - I'll check here later.

Djehuty:

I signed off this thread, as you'll see below. I'm reminded of an exchange I had with Blaise a while back about the difference between random circumstances and free will when the Universe is in chaos, as reflected in the novel Fifth Business.

Faced with Chaos, everyone always has choices about everything. But was the precipitating event random or an exercise of free will?

Please delete any comments made by me on this article. I regret getting involved in this.

Steve, I'd reach out to you my friend but I'm down here in this bloody big hole.

Dennis 4.13:

I believe she herself has said otherwise somewhere in this tropical rainforest of comments.

Steve, I'd reach out to you my friend but I'm down here in this bloody big hole.

Aaaawww, winsomecowboy, so sorry to hear that. ha ha. We can't have you wasting yourself there, can we? You can take my hand and I'll try to help you out, but I am not as strong as Steve, obviously. He'll help you too. Come on, dear friend, I'm missing your talents! :o)

Dennis:

Point granted.

Moreover and furthermore and however and nevertheless, or whatever, there's a distinction between "What I might've done differently had I known then what I know now" and "What I did do when I didn't know then what I know now," so there's no neccessary contradiction.

2. My husband, from whom I am amicably separated (he knew about the prank) received a call from his sister, who saw the article, and asked him if he knew I had a young man living in my apartment.

thats kind of funny... people from my work hijacked my work cell, had the secretary answer and told my wife that she was my g/f... that was fun, but funny (to me) afterwards.

Maybe we didn't make it ridiculous enough, Viki? How far do you think we'd have to go before people's incredulity glands started working?

What this has made me wonder is if I'd fall for it too. I mean people who know you well were taken in... My mum knew the truth (obviously) but was offended. Hmmmm....

lauhal

It really was innocent. I apologize creating a problem. That was never my intention.

Simple and I believe sincere.

The truly classy way to handle the whole situation.

Seems to me that this is a coming-of-age transition for Newsvine. I tried to look at Walt D's article first only to find it had been pulled, then Noah's article and thought it was real, then Viki's and began to wonder, Celestina's and couldn't believe it, then Djehuty's article and I figured it was a Drollhouse action.

Since I've been here so long, I remembered other Drollhouse days. In some ways, those were the good old days, when people were all essentially beta-testing the site, even after the beta was over. It's understandable that people felt ready to do it all again, but the site has changed and grown, so the joke wasn't one. There's still plenty of room for humor and satire, but as has been alluded to, there are more new users than seasoned Viners, so now we see how this kind of action made too many assumptions about people's responses.

And as usual, satire is too often misunderstood on a text-based site. I'm sorry it didn't work, but am hopeful that people who felt hurt by it will take a deep breath and realize that many of us who didn't comment sympathize with you. I wish it had worked better, but have learned something, even though I wasn't part of the prank.

lauhal:

It really was innocent. I apologize creating a problem. That was never my intention.

Look. I have no problem accepting that claim in good faith, especially as to intent. But one of the reasons the blacklash has been so furious (you listening, Calvin?) are the themes and subjects you chose for each other, which were in many cases HIGHLY inappropriate whatever the circumstances.

I haven't worked out all of everyone who who wrote everyone, but if your intent really was to be light-hearted and to perform an exercise in critical thinking, then the fake-Dennis got it right. The rest of you got it wrong.

The fake-Brad, for example, which would be you if I'm not mistaken, and the fake-rwarner both wrote about bleeding testicles. Are you really so clueless as to not see that such content and imagery would overwhelm any mere amusement or the possibility of better-than-visceral response?

The fake-Viki, who I believe is Djehuty, wrote an article that had like a 50 to 1 chance of being true. Thus, he put readers in the position of being almost certain that there was some kind of satire going on, but on the off-off-off-chance that it was true, readers didn't want to mock her in what could be a time of crisis, and so figured it was better to err on the side of trust rather than distrust--which, by the way, is the OPPOSITE of a critical thinking exercise (although it was a maxim of the late Senator Eugene McCarthy).

I still can't get the @!$%#ing rabbit image out of my head. I'm guessing that's Dennis's fault.

I believe you all ended up picking those mostly HIGHLY inappropriate themes and subjects because among yourselves you fell into a "top this" dynamic on each other, which overruled your better judgement and blinded you to what should have been the obvious possibility of just this kind of backlash. Am I right?

It's understandable that people felt ready to do it all again, but the site has changed and grown, so the joke wasn't one.

It has. ::sigh:: I just posted an article about taking some topics to "friends only". I'm torn on that, as it threatens to create the very thing some Viners accused our "terrible 12" of . . . being a "clique".

lauhal:

Well, your article was gruesome. Then do you have some hidden hostility to men?

:^{)>

Seriously, though, one of the problems with your article, or rather, fake-Brad, is that real Brad hasn't been much of a presence on the Vine for a long time. For your "opposite to" concept to work, the readers had to know "opposite to what?" By the time I read it of course I didn't believe it but I never thought "Oh, Brad would never write this" because I didn't know Brad. What I thought was "Who would write garbage like this for the frontpage?"

And your snarky man-hating comment about my sexuality is off base.

Well, I guess you can say he's half-right.

luahal:

You chose the topic. If whoever was supposed to have written as you had published a first-person rape narrative, what conclusions would you draw about the person who wrote it?

lauhal, for what it's worth, I don't think it was a comment about your sexuality. You've just got to understand that most men are…a bit squeamish about that kind of thing, ya know?

lauhal:

You didn't answer my question. If whoever was supposed to have written as you had published a first-person rape narrative, what conclusions would you draw about the person who wrote it?

This would be a really good time to apologise before we go on, Jack. I know you and I don't get on but just sit back for a sec and think about it anyway. Please.

Djehuty:

Okay.

lauhal:

Sorry about the crack, which was especially rude in the middle of a meta eruption when feelings are already raw.

lauhal 5.1:

The overwhelming backlash and harsh comments have taken me by surprise. I had no idea that such a silly thing could cause spawn such nasty diatribe.

As Scott Isaacs observed at his "The Joke" thread:

However, this prank touched off a powder keg that has been building the longer that these three or four groups have been targeting those that they don't like and don't run with an equivalent group.

What might seem to be an overreaction is often a cumulative reaction. There's a lot stored resentment toward the Vine insider power elite. The "community" aspect valued here lends itself to both mobbing and shunning. Maybe this will serve as a wake-up call.

There's a lot stored resentment toward the Vine insider power elite.

I'm sorry but you probably don't realise how silly this sounds. There's no "we". Some of the "12" are personally friends but we don't even communicate about NV in any organised way.

but we don't even communicate about NV in any organised way

And there are certainly groups here at Newsvine who do collude. If you want to look for cliquish insular behavior, the Drollhouse is not your target, but I can give you directions.

Go forward, turn right, turn right, turn right, turn right, tur….

Let me speak to this whole power elite thing for a moment.

As should be fairly obvious here - I wasn't in on this prank. That's cool, the Drollhouse folks know me well enough that they didn't even need to ask.

That said, this whole notion of a power elite is a little silly. Now I know that there's nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise. Anything that goes counter to the pre-conceived notion is just the "power elite" trying to hold that power and remain elite. Anything that confirms it is instantly snapped up.

It's a classic conspiracy theory supported by classic confirmation bias.

Even so, here goes.

I communicate - personally - with the following high-profile newsviners with some regularity: Mykola, Ryan, and Adam Hobson. I drop Calvin a line every so often. That's it.

Now I'm not arrogant enough to suggest that there couldn't be some shadowy conspiracy out there that I know nothing of - but if there is I haven't heard of it. I am, however, arrogant enough to think that I'd at least be invited to a dark-shadowy-masters of Newsvine club -- even as a Jr. member.

Calvin:

Message received.

On the line-by-line thing, it went to my argument up in 5.6 about the content of some of the articles irrespective of the fact that they were devised as part of the prank.

Killfile - the perception of any conspiracy or clique sets (if it exists) is much more subtle than you suggest. During debate, when a group of Viners who appear to be engaged with each other in a public thread, acknowledging each others presence on that thread, perhaps X saying how much they agree or disagree with Y etc without applying the same to B who may be a newbie, perhaps someone who is not a frequent commenter, or someone who is not an easily recognised brand to the masses.

But B does offer value to that debate. Maybe some Viners agreeing with B may simply vote that comment without saying anything. And don;t get me wrong, that is good. But when B continues to recieve either the silent assent by some or nothing a few times running from the same individual or groups of people who appear as part of a group think (even if they are not), it runs the risk of rejection building in B.

Those kinds of feelings can turn into resentment and bitterness so that when a situation (like this prank) presents itself, things come out and get blown up, apparently where it seems that the reaction was far greater than initially envisaged.

As I have said throughout this exercise (which I still maintain is probably the most important event in my time on the Vine through my admittedly singular view), this will prove to be our biggest triumph. We have to be open to learn from it. And acknowledge the part played by all those other than the 12 who have directly played a part. A community comprises people. Everyone brings value to a community. Group think and human egos sometimes get in the way of accepting that simple reality.

Look. I have no problem accepting that claim in good faith, especially as to intent. But one of the reasons the blacklash has been so furious (you listening, Calvin?) are the themes and subjects you chose for each other, which were in many cases HIGHLY inappropriate whatever the circumstances.

It's not my intent to resurrect the argument here. My anger over some of this stuff has generally subsided.

I just wanted to say though, that in at least one case the subject matter was incredibly personal. I took Mykola (or whoever the hell it was) article seriously, and when I found out that it was somebody getting a chuckle... well, I think enraged would be a good description. If whoever wrote that had watched someone come out of the closet and lose their wife and family afterward, perhaps they would have tried getting their laughs in a different way. Or maybe they have experienced it and they are that big of a jerk; since I'm trying to get over it, lets assume otherwise. If I'm wrong in my assumption, please leave me in the dark.

I suppose that if the pranksters had chosen to actually write something funny, I wouldn't have seen red. This is the sort of joke that is only funny to the one pulling it off, there's no real humor in it. In other words,it was indeed a prank, the very lowest sort of humor.

My anger over the senior members of newsvine advertising the weaknesses of the medium is still very much there, but I suppose I'll get over it. Maybe if those involved would stop cracking wise and minimalizing it, I'd get over it faster.

Smilin':

If whoever wrote that had watched someone come out of the closet and lose their wife and family afterward, perhaps they would have tried getting their laughs in a different way.

'Twas noah. If you missed it, Myk published the list here.

The publication of the list does seem to have taken some of the starch out of the cracking of wise, replaced in some cases by exasperation. Seems an improvement to me.

But B does offer value to that debate. Maybe some Viners agreeing with B may simply vote that comment without saying anything. And don;t get me wrong, that is good. But when B continues to recieve either the silent assent by some or nothing a few times running from the same individual or groups of people who appear as part of a group think (even if they are not), it runs the risk of rejection building in B.

That was confusing... but I think I got your point.

If I do that it is not intentional. For the most part my comments are argumentative (well they are) and thus I tend to engage the most vocal and (in my view) wrong of the comments I see. Sometimes that's an old hand, sometimes that's someone I've never seen before.

Certainly conversations should not flow around the new contributors. I think it's really important to draw out new posters and get them involved. Fresh meat and all that.

I can't honestly say I've paid close enough attention to the commenting styles of others to see if they are doing as you suggest. I hope not. I would certainly hope that, if they are, that it's unintentional.

would certainly hope that, if they are, that it's unintentional.

I agree. In most cases it is unintentional. But I don't think as many people realise the effect, especially on newbies. Of course, I'm not saying conversations should only flow around groups by how new or old the contributors may be. They should flow around the comment in the context of the discussion. But you will be surpised if you observe conduct how often it appears to rotate around a closer group within a thread.

It's also very dependent on the style of engagement by each viner and their comfort zones.

Thus proving that : Truth is stranger than fiction.

It was a high compliment to Newsvine that people do not expect trickery here unless it is explicitly marked. It wasn't explicitly marked and they got angry and vocal. I honest to God do not get what is so strange about the response to the people that say it was strange or, particularly, to the one person that was hostile to it.

Martin: Honestly, I find the reaction to the prank much stranger than the prank itself.

As do I - it is a shame that such a fuss has been made about it. I have to admit, I was a little bit pissed off at first when I was called a stupid scumbag in one of the threads (now closed) by one of the alter-egos simply for pointing out that I thought someone was playing games.

A bit pissed off at first, but since I knew that something was going on, I soon forgot about it. Some of the alter-egoes were perhaps a little too abrasive, and maybe that is what has so many peoples backs up; that coupled with falling for the prank and feeling a bit foolish about it.

Well, you can't go through life without getting egg on your face from time to time. I think that those complaining the loudest should stop taking themselves quite so serioulsy and laugh this off.

Dennis:

Viki outted Djehuty on her column before it was de-published. I'll go with that until I have reason to think differently. I was told privately that you had written the bunny article, but that person may have been wrong so I'll withdraw that. You'll note I didn't cite it on Yuriy's thread.

No she didn't. I've already said. You misunderstood. You said you had it all worked out and you were wrong.

utmost respect for the balls on the person who wrote Djehuty's article

As did I. And I'm a veggie. At the time when I was first reading that article, I hadn't quite sussed what was going on. I honestly started thinking Djehuty was some Jekyll and Hyde character who had fooled me about his principles. I had a lump in my throat as I was adding my comment (and meant every word too). But I felt no revulsion for the guy, just his so-called practice. That takes balls by the writer to get that reaction from me, I can tell you.

Guess what I'm really saying is that the bunny article was so far away from my comfort zone I would have expected myself to throw up in disgust and leave. But I didn't, nor did I react in a way that I might have regretted. Irrespective of whether the article was real or fake. So it taught me something about myself in a safe setting that I might never have encountered in real life.

How can that be a bad thing to come away from?

Dennis:

I can't find it now, but somewhere in this blur of 25 or so articles and 2,000 or so comments, Viki accused Djehuty of sullying her already sullied reputation.

Yes but not of writing her article. The two are not necessarily the same. Plus someone involved already admitted I wrote a different article.

Dj & Viki:

Okay, I misinterpreted in the context

Dennis:

You won't see me guessing out loud. Although I have my suspicions.

(impossible, by the way. The other 2 would have written each others columns, and you would have known all of them).

Well, to be fair, lauhal admitted to writing Brad's column yet Brad didn't write one for lauhal so that would leave one other author who didn't have something published under their own name, unless someone wrote their own.

Do you really NEED to know? Does your mental health depend upon it?

Ooo! Ooo! Mine does. :)

Viki, Dennis:

Noted.

And moot.

Honestly, I find the reaction to the prank much stranger than the prank itself.

Man, I miss Martin.

Kyle,

just be a community again

While I'm for everyone logging off and chilling a bit, I think it's going to be difficult for some to "just be a community" when there's a loss of trust among those we thought we knew, at least a little. If you have a prankster at your office, you're never going to be at ease when they are around--that's what I'm feeling. Maybe that's what they were going for, but it's sad when so many liked this place because they felt they had a trusted community here, one where you could share your personal situation and have others support you. The hope I had for Newsvine was that that sense of community that many of us feel/felt would draw others in. Perhaps it will again, eventually. I'm not deleting any the miscreants from my friends list, but I certainly won't hold them as highly in my esteem as I did. And from what I'm hearing from some of them, they could care less. That really IS sad.

hot pink?

Hmmmm..... black Vineacity badges for a month?!

Black is too sexy a color. How about a dull brown?

Black is too sexy a color. How about a dull brown?

Baby poo.

hot pink?

For Myk anyway! ;-)

Can it drip with blood, though?

For Myk anyway! ;-)

Fine with me. It brings out his eyes.

Can it drip with blood, though?

No, with this year's Oscars, blood is sexy, too.

Brown with hot pink polka dots. Look at me compromising.

Now why would you want to dip it in blood?

Now why would you want to dip it in blood?

That's right. Blood, like au jus, is for drinking, not dipping.

Canadian checking in. Damn we are a hot pair.

OK, I concede.... you are Canadian.

You? Concede?? Y'all may not know it, but this is a major coup for the world.

Canadian checking in. Damn we are a hot pair.

@!$%# yes. We need to arrange a photo spread. Then we can start an advice column to help people who wish they were as unholy sexy as we. Au jus, love? ;)

Y'all may not know it, but this is a major coup for the world.

not when you say "y'all"... you're a fake Canadian... damn southerners.

Sorry, even I'm embarrased by that ya'll, eh.

not when you say "y'all"... you're a fake Canadian... damn southerners.

I live in Ohio. When in Rome...

I live in Ohio. When in Rome...

Don't you live in Upper Arlington?

Ohio = Yankees. If y'all ain't south of the Mason-Dixon, no y'all for all y'all.

Ohio is more of a "you guys" state.
Kentucky is a "y'all" state.
West Virginia is [shudder] a "y'uns" state.

Of course, as you get closer to the borders, those things sort of blend.

Who have you been hanging out with, Ryan?

Sorry, even I'm embarrased by that ya'll, eh.

perhaps an 'aboot' or 'tumooro'... something so that my idea of Canada is in tact?

I live in Ohio. When in Rome...

Ohio? well... I guess for a REAL Canadian that would be southern... but y'all.... more east and slightly south before that get in there...

Who have you been hanging out with, Ryan?

Clearly, you've never heard of Grovetucky. Or the retail industry.

Ohio? well... I guess for a REAL Canadian that would be southern... but y'all.... more east and slightly south before that get in there...

Everyone seems to think "y'all" is a Southern expression. It isn't. If it were, I wouldn't be using it, because the South, as far as I know it, concerns Chattanooga and Orlando only. I live in Ohio. I hear "y'all" every day....well, every day I leave the house.

Ya'll is pretty Appalachian. And Ohio's more Appalachian tendencies have been creeping into Columbus for quite some time (only held at bay by certain forces in the Short North.) It's called a city, but would be more accurately described as "a nice little town."

Any time, Calvin. Actually, Ryan and I kinda have something in the early planning stages...

Christ, Viki, don't give him ideas. We were thinking more along the lines of a housewarming. For @!$%#'s sake. (x_x)

An engagement party????

I would have guessed baby shower.

Everyone seems to think "y'all" is a Southern expression. It isn't. If it were, I wouldn't be using it, because the South, as far as I know it, concerns Chattanooga and Orlando only. I live in Ohio. I hear "y'all" every day....well, every day I leave the house.

Its okay. I'd say the same thing. But, we're all friends here. You ain't got to lie to kick it :)

I would have guessed baby shower.

Who's baby though?

Who's baby though?

Even I have the good sense not to open this can of worms.

Even I have the good sense not to open this can of worms.

How come Walt ? Forget where you were that night ?

(shutting up now)

Please, guys. It's patently absurd to question the parentage of my future children. If I'm having a baby, it's going to be with the Mommamaker.

Cone of silence for me too.

STOP RENTING OUT MY WOMB!!!!!!

So who's the pimp? Enquiring minds want to know.

So who's the pimp? Enquiring minds want to know.

Honestly, I've been putting the "I" in pimp since 1977

Black is too sexy a color. How about a dull brown?

Baby poo.

stolte-sawa, you have so much to learn.

baby poo is yellow.

No, no, winsome, it was an alternative to "dull brown", not a suggestion within the spectrum. I have six under-twelves for cousins and am familiar with the baby poo swatch and yellow is, in my opinion, the nastiest of all hues. Incidentally, it's also my band's flagship colour.

That being said, mustard FTW!

And stop hinting at pregnancy. This womb stays empty, ya heard?

I wonder if requiring the use of real names should be part of that. (In which case I would argue you allow people to create two accounts, one real name and one pseudonym, linked internally so they could not vote for each other)

an "opt-in" program for contributors, vouching for authenticity and holding themselves to a higher standard

I like that idea very much...as long as it's an option for specific articles, and not for everything you ever write (and no, I am not planning a repeat of the prank, but I still want to occasionally be able to write an article about my cat and have that be OK).

As most of you know I have no problem disclosing my real name in association with an article, but I like the "Killfile" brand. It's also a nod to my old college buddies in a round-about way. I don't want to lose that.

Calvin, consider this a formal request: Please give us a "real name" thing that we can fill in and have verified by Newsvine in some manner that doesn't obscure our handle.

My name is Amber Neve. It is as plain as day at my Newsvine address:

http://amberneve.newsvine.com/

I published the following remarks this morning. To reiterate my primary point, What are the issue(s) at the root of the prank that expose needs and/or weaknesses within the system? I'd be interested in further input along the lines of this question.

I missed everything yesterday, so I am responding after the fact. I became aware of what went on because of Celestina's article, "Thank You For Participating". She wrote:

The question you are undoubtedly asking yourself now is Why would we screw with you like this?

The first part of the answer is "Because we're the Drollhouse...that's what we do."

But really, there is more to it than that. Even here on Newsvine, we must never lose the propensity for critical reading and thinking. No matter how much you may have agreed with an author in the past, that doesn't mean that you always will. We are all just human here, we all make mistakes. We all sometimes step over the line into what is inappropriate, idiotic, or just plain wrong. For that matter, the same goes for any media outlet. All those stories are just written by people, too. People with opinions, agendas, and human fallibility. It doesn't matter where you get your news, sometimes it is just wrong. It doesn't matter how much you like or respect someone, sometimes they are just wrong.

So before you get angry, before you feel used and abused, stop and review your reaction to the articles listed above. No matter how you responded to any or all of them, it's ok. If you find that sometimes you let your own fondness cause you to overlook glaring inconsistencies in character, or nod in agreement with something you know is crazy, you are in good company. We all do it. It's just important that we all know it can happen.

Do you think it's possible that you might have missed her point(s)?

I recall that Mike D. has written that while a goal of Newsvine is to "get smarter", it is possible (and perhaps advisable) to have fun doing so. This latter goal, or sub-goal, of Newsvine falls under its "community" aspect. Levity is one way to help promote community cohesion. The participants were and are solid, tested and proven Newsviners.

What you did see is the creativity, versatility, and speed of a vibrant community. Bearing this in mind, I hope you will reconsider your initial reaction to depart the site. Steam comes and goes. I would like to add that your comments are very well written and that a person with your skills is an asset to the community.

I would also add that giving a third party access to one's Newsvine account (including password) is not appropriate. The participants in the prank ought to be cautioned and required to change their passwords. Perhaps they can create a separate group or access a "Satire" link in order to host their creativity and minimize confusion.

I wonder if requiring the use of real names should be part of that. (In which case I would argue you allow people to create two accounts, one real name and one pseudonym, linked internally so they could not vote for each other)

That actually sounds good, but also like a lot of back end work, especially on a retroactive level. tough, that doesn't justify NOT doing it. My question now would be, would you handle earnings on the same level? Linking both accounts to the same earning account (likely the primary or initial account).

It's also important that when introducing a new feature to an online community that a level of consideration be taken in to account regarding the collective intelligence and drive of the user base. No, I'm not saying that the user base in stupid and or lazy, but I am asking will they be able to effectively learn the new features or be willing to handle the new features should they be implemented. People are often driven back a little when the idea of 'more work' is put forth. Many sites that rearrange a work flow suffer a little if it is done wrong or in a manner that the users don't accept.

How would the earnings be handled as far as the two accounts go, and what incentive would there be for someone to opt in? As an example (and in no way claiming that we need to be, or that there are greedy people here - just allowing for a line of thought in that direction), What incentive would someone have on a monetary level to write fully credible factual articles that would be posted on MSNBC as opposed to writing a handful of Op-Ed articles that ran a much lower chance of being posted to MSNBC is the earning potential was not increased by the credible and factual "NEWS". Maybe, I'm thinking in the wrong direction here... instead of increasing the earning potential for the factual / credible MSNBC ready publication, it could be presented in that the Op-Ed narratives have DECREASED earning potential.

The mind set then becomes "reward or punish".... but in truth it is neither. It's an adjustment of the business model, true enough (IMO). It still offers a choice - we choose to decrease our potentials, and as with me... honestly I don't' care TOO much about my earnings. I think int the 2 years I've been here... I've gotten all of maybe $80 total (most of which I donate anyway) - or - we choose to stay focused on what Newsvine set itself up to be - while keeping the ability to goof off (but it's not profitable now)

Maybe all this pro/con prank prattle is the prank itself.

How meta.

You truly belong at Newsvine.

You truly belong at Newsvine.

Yes, indeed, Eric, he surely does!! :o)

I want the design for your tin-foil hat;-)

I think it very important that the Newsvine citizen journalism experiment remain bottom up rather than top (MSNBC) down.

Well said.

For what its worth... I once advocated for a limit to the article's posted monthly per contributor. It sounds counter-intuitive to a site looking for more content and viewership, but I believe if people have a limited monthly opportunity to contribute they will provide better content within their limits. In turn, competition for quality will generate a wider base of contributions.

It will also allow others who are less voluminous in their contributions to have a better chance of surfacing. My 2.

Number of seeds is a far bigger problem than number of articles.

But a very interesting idea

How about this, TJ, a submission cap for articles being considered for syndication to MSNBC in relation to the certified contributor program (man, I need to come up with a name that sticks)?

Newsvine's "Certified Organic Select"

Certified because we personally certify our original authorship of the story and take responsibility for the research done to back it up.

Organic because it is citizen produced absent the corporate influence of the MSM.

Select because we're putting it forward as the best we have to offer.

Now if only I could turn that into a pronounceable acronym that was also a plant pun....

Certified contributor progam is a mouthful, but I'm glad you see some value to a cap of sorts. Organic Select has a better ring to it and a good contextual fit.

The original thought which i could probably never relocate, basically suggested a staged cap allowing for more contributions per vineacity level but not such an amount that competition for quality is lost.

organic selection and growth is a great way to get people to take better care of their article garden and possibly their seeds too.

Another option if you want this to be community-drive as with re-classification, is a separate vote for "News Worthy" or "MSNBC worthy".

Some of the better community sites have more voting dimensions. The current vote means way too many things: the article is high quality, was interesting, it made me laugh, I agree with what it's saying, it was written by my friend, I'd love for this to make the front page and get a bunch of people's panties in a knot, ....

Maybe articles could be warded, by sufficient vote, different badges. In addition to badges for the aforementioned list of voting reasons, political badges would be popular. I think many of my recent articles would earn the Obamaniac badge, but I could live with it.

Some of the better community sites have more voting dimensions. The current vote means way too many things: the article is high quality, was interesting, it made me laugh, I agree with what it's saying, it was written by my friend, I'd love for this to make the front page and get a bunch of people's panties in a knot, ....

Exactly. But every time I've seen Newsvine comment on this, they've said they wanted to keep voting as simple as possible.

Although, perhaps, if they think that the category "push" (a kind of vote, in itself) could work for users, I don't really see why a separate "worthiness" or "quality" vote of some kind couldn't be added, too. There's just not really any other way let the community voice their opinion on the "worthiness" or "quality" of an article based only on the simple vote and number of comments, because neither of those latter things is tied directly to former. There are simply too many motivations for people to leave comments and vote on articles and seeds that have zip to do with how "good" they are.

Newsvine's "Certified Organic Select"

Now if only I could turn that into a pronounceable acronym that was also a plant pun....

Well, Cos is a type of lettuce :o)

Certified contributor sounds like a blood or semen donor. Ewww... Why did I say that.

chill:

Number of seeds is a far bigger problem than number of articles.

Why are seeds a problem? People come here for news. I'm not the writer that Killfile, Stacy M, etc are. I spend a lot of time looking for news from many sources that other's haven't seen and would be interested in, particulary in the groups that I'm in. So, I seed as much as I can and I think it has a place here.

For what it's worth, Scott Isaacs very good article did not show up on the front page even as other similar articles were showing up over and over.

I'm pretty sure the Newsvine Columnists module is dynamic as you load the page so it won't be the same for everyone. I saw his article several times on the front page. I have the module expanded to 15 authors though.

Yes, me too (expanded to 15 authors). My experience has been that almost all articles show up on the front page contributors at some point during the day. My practice of nonviolence pieces which rarely get over 5 votes show up there all the time. It doesn't seem to me that there's a real hierarchy there. Now, on the most commented on, or the most votes...yes--perhaps that is what y'all are talking about. (And I AM Southern and damn proud of it.)

All it took to erode decades of solid journalistic credibility was one simple "mistake". Just one. And we are not talking about some pseudo-celebrity on a news/entertainment website. We're talking about a professional.

@!$%#, I hadn't thought about that...Do you think...no. It can't be. Don't tell me that after 40 years of salaried integrity I'm going to stop being a household name. I'll have to find some sort of...of...of hobby! Like maybe talking about news on the internet, say, or...hmm...

Yeah, I know, I know, you're just trying to be funny. But, remember big fella, you'll never be a real journalist. A "citizen journalist" Sure why not, every other person I meet these days claims to be one.

As for your hobby, talking about news on the Internet would be fine as long as you're not making jokes at the expense of homosexuality. That won't get you anywhere.

Show me one point in my two years here where I've ever claimed to be a citizen journalit, PrezO.

And given that we've corresponded privately I'd expect you to be one of the last to claim that I was making jokes at the expense of homosexuality. I'm the one that took that down, not the one who wrote it. But, it did show up in my column, so I accept any flack for allowing it to appear for an hour.

But let's be clear, I didn't write it. I wrote Celestina's. And it went over great. :)

I didn't say you claimed to be one. I just said that's all you can ever hope to be.

Yeah, okay, so you told me that you didn't write it and that some young guy (Noah Bradly I guess) wrote it. It is good that you took it down. I commend you for that.

But I'm just sayin' people associate names with things they read. In today's world, unfortunate as it is, perceptions matter more than the truth. A few months from now, when people talk about this fiasco, they're not gonna say : "oh, you mean the article making fun of homosexuality that Noah Bradly wrote using Mykola B's id?" No, they're gonna say : "oh, you mean the article making fun of homosexuality that was on Mykola B's column?" or "oh, you mean Mykola B's article making fun of homosexuality?"

A few months from now, when people talk about this fiasco, they're not gonna say

A few months from now when people talk about this fiasco a large part of the userbase will have turned over, many won't know what it was, and a larger number won't care anymore.

You mean that people will remember this tempest in a teapot a few months from now?

I'm putting a reminded in my calendar so that I can show up four months down the road, comment on all the articles making a fuss, and make it show up in the comment trackers. Muh-ha-ha-ha!

I'm putting a reminded in my calendar so that I can show up four months down the road, comment on all the articles making a fuss, and make it show up in the comment trackers. Muh-ha-ha-ha!

That's it. You're just as bad as they are. I'm de-friending you, stomping on your flowers and stealing your cat.

The entertainment editor who I've been working with in relation to the Entertainment Gateway emailed me and asked me about one of the backlash articles.

Oops email them again...see if you can get them to print anything as humorous as this current controversial topic. Just think if Bush and Cheney did something like this..."Hey guys you know those WMDs we were talking about, well, they don't exist but we thought we'd have so some fun with everyone; did you think we were serious?"

Egos and page hits.

OMG! You never tire of throwing out inanities, do you? You just remind me of when I was a little 12-year old girl who thought she was smarter than her parents and made it a habit to respond to them with asinine inanities. A decade later and now I cringe when I think of how I used to be.

It was Killfile before and it's Killfile now and I am truly relieved to see that he wasn't involved.

Did it change during the day yesterday?

I've worked hard on my writing while I've been here, and I feel like what you guys did has directly subtracted from my own credibility. It has been repeatedly stated that if newsvine lost credibility recently it's because our credibility was "overvalued." Sort of like the housing market.

Well, bull@!$%#.

My credibility is never over-valued.

You misunderstood my point. I value your credibility, too.

But the point is that so long as Newsvine is a site without editors, it's simply wrong to assume that the content generated in toto will ever be as reliable and trustworthy as a site with editors. If the MSNBC editor was looking for a steady stream of reliable content to rely on without much oversight, that was, frankly, a stupid move on the part of that editor.

If we don't have editors, then the site is completely open (within the limits of user reporting responding to content after the fact) to anyone posting anything for any motivation. That's a fact that needs to be recognized when talking about the credibility of the site as a whole. Not your credibility. Newsvine's.

Even my suggestion at the top of this article won't fully address that. Nothing will, except heavy, pervasive moderation or editorial control. I don't think the majority of users would like to see that.

I don't accept any apology, not because I'm particularly vindictive, but simply because after reading what everyone had to say, I don't believe most of them are sorry. Or if they are, it's only been because of the degree of the response. Presumably, without a huge hue and cry they wouldn't be that sorry, or so I see from what they've written.

Smiling Jack, you've summed up my feeling on this. Thanks.

Oh please. For someone who has precisely zero seeds and articles, your high horse sure is stratospheric.

Like I said before, I am a bad writer. So I don't write. I only comment.
Why don't you like my suggestion? You think we should trust every one here?

And since you made me feel bad, I just seeded a link. Hope you find it useful.

Why don't you like my suggestion? You think we should trust every one here?

Everyone... No One. Man, I swear I remember there being a middle ground somewhere.

*scratches head*

Sorry to disappoint you. We only have :

left or right
us or them
right or wrong
with or against
black or white
patriot or terrorist

I could go on ....

You think we should trust every one here?

A rule that I follow is:

"Never trust anyone, especially in cyberspace. But always assume good intent from another"

It is not as easy as it sounds to follow. But it helps me keep my nose clean. More often.

Sorry to disappoint you. We only have :

left or right
us or them
right or wrong
with or against
black or white
patriot or terrorist

Prezo--not everyone here posts controversial stuff. This stuff does tend to bring in the readership, votes, comments and the articles/seeds not in this vein might not be to your taste or interest, but they are there. Check out Scott Butki, Ms Cyprah, Mel Coulter, gladbutterfly, Marilyn L, Pasi, Bozzor, Rob Ballew and on and on. I suggest to you and all new folks to check out the groups page and see what's posted there. There's a LOT more going on here than what's on the front page!

Thanks for the pointers, Angel_C.

I checked out a few. I think I liked Bozzor the best. Then Rob Ballew's.

Mel Coulter - too sappy, it reminded me much of the Cosmo articles. Scott Butki seems to have a few decent ones but then he also has a lot of fluffy articles and I noticed he does like to self-advertise himself a lot. Kinda nauseating after a while. Ms Cyprah's articles - some of them were like Coulter's but with a bit more depth. But, she's a fellow Obamaite. How bad can she be? ;-) Pasi and Marilyn L have lotsa interesting seeds. I wasn't able to find gladbutterfly.

Thanks again.
XOXOXO.

Ms Cyprah's articles - some of them were like Coulter's but with a bit more depth. But, she's a fellow Obamaite. How bad can she be?

Cos I like the idea of change and the possibilities that come with it, PrezO, and just having something different to try. Thanks for looking at my column and your comments. :o)

We could be doing useful things with the wood.

That's what she said.

Actually that's what Tom Waits said, nice quote Iar!

Where the discourse is so much less inflamed?

:^{)>

Move along, move along, nothing to see here.

-Dave