Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

..depends at least in part on its presentation.  Its failure does not necessarily mean some personal flaw in the reader.

I am intrigued by David Roffey's  comment :    "...1) irony is obviously beneath Ian's notice..."

Could you please point out which response/s of yours were meant ironically? 

I had accepted your opinions in good faith as written, but your comment shows that I have misunderstood you, as I certainly saw no irony.   Could you clarify?

We watched a part of the "Good news week" where Julie Bishop was interviewed.

It may sound uncomplimentary but, the "Lady with an attitude" as I have called her, should give up her day job.

Ms. Bishop was brilliant and relaxed during the "couch" section concerning her childhood.  Whether true or not she was very entertaining and it was a buzz to us to be able to finally enjoy her TV presence.

Well done to Julie - can she lighten up Malcolm?

NE OUBLIE.

First let me congratulate Malcolm B Duncan on the speed at which he wrote his threadstarter What Webdiary means  to you is not necessarily what it means to me', and also the Webdiary Management on their efficiency in publishing it within an hour of its finishing. Malcolm, you are clearly a man of influence. I waited in vain for even an acknowledgement of my proposed threadstarter, entitled What Future for Webdiary?'

Perhaps the Webdiary censors might like to evaluate the damage they are doing to the site’s liberal image by treating some contributors with silence and closet contempt, and others with open enthusiasm. I say ‘censors’, while being aware that there should be a mountain of difference between moderation and censorship. One-line abusive snipes can be found in abundance on many unmoderated sites, and I would not want to see them infest Webdiary. But in my case failure to post or even acknowledge the thread I submitted was censorship. That is, information control.

One should not have to resort to stunts in the middle of the night in order to bypass the censors and slip a thread in as a comment to a nominally liberal site in the way I did. Though admittedly, it did take me back to the days of the Vietnam Moratorium when, gluepot in one hand and brush in the other, I darted late at night round the streets of Sydney dodging the cops and pasting up antiwar posters.

I now want to take issue with some of David Roffey’s replies, which appear under Malcolm’s thread here as well as under my comment What Future for Webdiary under 'About Webdiary'.

Terminal Decline?

David Roffey disputes my view that Webdiary is in terminal decline, and quotes site statistics (such as comment numbers for the past three years) as evidence. He then contradicts himself when he says that it is "very much not true" for me to say that "the more comment the better is taken for granted" by Webdiary.  Well, he can't have it both ways.

While I said that comment, and the more the better, is the lifeblood of any weblog, I did not say that the number of comments is a valid measure of the site in and of itself; or of the intellectual sophistication of those contributing to it. Far from it. A perusal of some of the threads Fiona Reynolds cites as having attracted large numbers of comments will soon blow that idea away, and is actually one of the issues I raised. 

If the site was dynamic and seen as a place for intelligent and balanced debate by its visitors or those who hit it regularly, then over the past two years the commentariat would have been expanding, attracting in-depth comment and diverse thread contributions from new contributors; which it clearly has not been doing. The reverse has been true. The student exercise to some extent is at least a recognition by Management of that, but it remains to be seen whether that translates into lasting improvement and atttracts a greater number of contributors over the longer term.

Policy on DNPed (ie Do Not Publish) Comments:
 
David Roffey wrote: "On general principle, we should avoid publishing any material from DNP'd posts, however much we are tempted to use them to justify decisions. By all means copy them back to complainants to explain why they were DNP'd, but don't quote them in the public domain. All of our longtime correspondents on all sides have had their moments of intemperance which they would prefer not to see again. It is invidious (and a bastardised editorial form of ad hominem attack on them) to publish one person or side's transgressions."

This, note, is David Roffey’s personal opinion. It is nowhere written down in the guidelines, and is incidental confirmation of the necessity to avoid arbitrary and unwritten codes of conduct in the wider sphere. I do not agree with him on this. Clearly if a Webdiarist sends in a comment that is not marked 'NFP' (not for publication) then that Webdiarist intends that comment to be published. So he or she must be happy if it is published, and put out if it is not.

I do agree with David Roffey that a commenter can have the occasional moment of intemperance and I also agree that such comments should simply be left unpublished. However, when a Webdiarist sends four increasingly shrill and abusive comments over more than a day, and claims editorial bias against him, and is backed up on at least one of those claims by one of the other editors, then clearly he intended to be heard and intended those comments to be published. 

To suggest that my attempt to carry out the commenter's clear wishes would be a "bastardised editorial form of ad hominem attack" on him is convoluted garbage, and I suggest that David Roffey is intelligent enough to know it. 

The Webdiarist concerned thought he was badly done by, and it appears he has not posted since. I hope this will at least let him know I was prepared, in seeking to have all four DNPed comments put up under an explanatory comment of my own, to have my decisions against him examined by the whole community.

My actions in relation to this matter however led to my being sacked as editor by David Roffey on grounds of a breach of editorial ethics. Clearly these ethics, however defined are rather rubbery in their application. David Roffey appears to have no problem with another editor self-publishing an abusive comment against another Webdiarist around 4 am in the morning. I refer of course to Richard Tonkin’s little epistle to Jenny Hume entitled ‘Go to blazes Jenny’ which clearly was in breach of WD guidelines. 

Comments will be Published if…

David Roffey says that if comments are “coherent, are not personally abusive and have content they will be up there”. Well actually, no they won’t. I later submitted a more general comment (in lieu of the one he objected to and had DNPed) in which I deleted the name of the Webdiarist concerned and his DNPed comments, ie the now published comment Allegation of Editorial Bias. This comment clearly met all three of the criteria. Yet to get that published I again had to resort to a dead-of-the-night conspiracy with the one remaining editor who abhors censorship. I had previously been told by a senior editor to whom I emailed it for comment, that if it was formally submitted it would not be published, due to part of it being in that editor’s opinion "inappropriate”. Three emails to that editor requesting clarification were simply ignored. I challenge David Roffey to show me how it failed his test and that editor to explain on what grounds it was "inappropriate". I suggest this was nothing more than another attempt at censorship, which I managed with the co-operation of the more liberal minded editor, to defeat.
 
I repeat: it is not my desire to see Webdiary fail as a community weblog. As I said I have particular affection for the site, and for its founder, but in its current state it has little to offer for me in terms of intellectual stimulation and I know I am not alone in that. Further, its current form of management with its tendency toward censorship does not sit well with me. A great deal has been written on Webdiary threads against information control on the part of Government and other agencies. Time then to practice what is being preached.

In conclusion I do not think Malcolm B Duncan is correct in his view that Webdiary is merely experiencing a lull. It is a malaise more like a deficiency disease, and for all the reasons I set out in ‘What future for Webdiary?’  However he is right to say that the site means different things to different people, and its small remaining community appears content to jog along as it is currently doing. That alleged present contentment is not shared, and I see the departure of many long-term contributors as a sign of that. When I spoke out I expected rational discussion of the issues I raised, but was rewarded with righteous editorial howls, and they circled the wagons.

So be it. Tonto, our work’s clearly done here. Time to leave them to it, saddle up and hit the trail into the sunset. With a bit of luck we might catch up with Jenny, who was last seen galloping off towards Broken Hill on a horse called Silver.  

Gone to blazes one could say.

(A footnote for those who have been wondering. For the record, I give here an outline history of what led to this whole fracas:

On the 'Henson vs Hanson' thread, Kathy Farrelly posted a link to a full-frontal photo by Henson of a naked juvenile woman that jumped over the subjective line between art and porn, and in the opinion of most if not all women commenting, landed on the wrong side. On the other hand, many but not all of the men took Henson’s side in this. So those men were challenged to say whether or not they would approve their daughters becoming subjects for such a Henson photo if offered the photo opportunity. 

Some of the responses were considered evasive by Jenny Hume and she in particular kept on the men involved like a blue heeler with a mob of cattle bunged up in a forcing yard, and they sensed only too well that they were being worked into a race and onto a truck. The emotional head of steam this built up resulted in editor Richard Tonkin’s 4 am explosion in Adelaide in his self-published abusive comment entitled ‘Go to blazes Jenny’, and in another diarist’s string of abusive comments; which I as an editor following standard procedure marked DNP, but in the subsequent furore sought to publish in an explanatory comment of my own.

The rest, as they say, is history.)

 David R: brief notes to those bits of the above that involve me: 1) irony is obviously beneath Ian's notice, 2) the "rule" I set out is a (to me) obvious corollary of the original rules - if a comment was deemed inappropriate to be published, then it shouldn't be published vicariously in the body of another comment; 3) if there is no trust between editors and they have to indulge in conspiracies, then the site is better off without their input, 4) Ian presumes my agreement with a comment I have never read and therefore have no opinion on:

You do yourself a disservice, Malcolm, by pointing out your new career as blogger, for upon examining your illustrious record, I came across the following prediction (which once again proves I am always right and others often wrong) :

Malcolm B Duncan: Howard will win again in both Houses."

As for the contest between Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd, this is a strange event as I can't think of two men who are probably more alike than any other in the current parliament, hence poor Malcolm's fury and schoolboy-like foot stamping, Rudd is trumping him every time but only because he is delivering Malcolm's ideas (and there aren't many others that can actually be delivered in the current mess) – hence Turnbull is looking at a frustrating many years as Opposition Leader when it wasn't meant to be this way, or wishing he had joined the Labor Party where at least he could undermine Rudd from within.

Personally, I'd be quite happy with either Malcolm or Kevin at the helm at the this point in time – although several (make that most) of Mal's opposition ministers are a real worry whereas only a handful of Rudd’s are.

The sad thing is, it just isn't in Malcolm Turnbull's destiny to be Prime Minister which is a shame.

Despite the wacky McCain and awful Sarah Apalin, it's Mal who really is the maverick and a good one at that.

Although his electric light bulb bonanza was a fizzler (but with the best intentions) it's forgotten that Turnbull produced a superb alternative housing policy that wasn't too dissimilar to the great Aneurin Bevan's welfare state policies in the UK (that saw a massive growth in a variety of social and mixed public/private housing), suitably updated for this century . Put into practice four years ago it would have been a real winner today especially with the current housing woes.

This guy does have good ideas but that particular one being perceived by Howard as slightly to the left of Thatcher/Attila the Hun, it was quietly binned.

However, Webdiary won't be binned and is about to rise (my prediction) – it's greatest asset having been to divorce itself (whether forced or otherwise) from the increasingly ridiculous Fairfax stable early on with enough time to build a reputation. It isn't the number of readers that count – it's the quality! It can only get better from here (like most things)

It now appears that the Americans have changed their bailout package to one very similar to the Rudd/Swan model.

I believe Wayne Swan when he consistently says that they expect there will be some changes or fine-tuning along the way and, while he has been roundly criticised by Poulson's friend Malcolm Turnbull (both from Goldman-Sachs), I consider that the US Treasury Chief is not too proud to admit that they too will have to learn as they go forward.

Top marks to him.

I noticed on ABC2 this morning that Andrew Robb was treated very kindly by Barry Cassidy.

He allowed Robb to constantly plead that he was only asking a question when he accused the Secretary of the Treasury of either manipulating or being manipulated.

It was not a question - it was an accusation, and he should have the guts to apologise.

I was also impressed at the attitude of Senator Xenophon. He appears to me to be a genuine independent with his own agenda. He voted against the Fuel Watch plan on his own judgement of it, and he refused to be involved with the other independent, the headline seeker Fielding.

Senator Xenophon rightly classed Fielding's demand for a Senate inquiry into who leaked the earth-shattering story about who said what after a private discussion with the lame-duck President George W. Bush as a waste of time and money.

One has to be suspicious of people who prosecuted two journalists from the Herald Sun who published a leaked story and then, in a complete reversal of so-called indignation, did nothing about Andrew Bolt, also of the Herald Sun, who also published a leaked story. Fair dinkum.

The Turnbull "New Order" is certainly showing their lack of parliamentary decorum with clowns like Robb, Abetz, Randall and the old rock solid and iron clad deceiver, Tony Abbott.

NE OUBLIE.

Got round to collating all the statistics from those boring Management Updates ...

We first had a good count of visitors on moving to this site from Typepad, and that coincided with Margo retiring. In that month (December 2005) we published 43 posts/topics (excluding 14 Daily Briefings and 4 from Project Syndicate); we published 2700 comments; and in the second half of the month had 8660 unique visitors. We had, for most of the month, four full-time staff working on publishing posts and comments.

In the three post-Margo / volunteer-run years, we've had the following averages:

Posts/topics (excluding Project Syndicate and student contributions):
2006: 25.5 per month; 2007: 25.4 per month; 2008: 27.7 per month.

Comments/replies:
2006: 1151 per month; 2007: 1199 per month; 2008: 1151 per month.

Unique visitors:
2006: approx 14,000 per month; 2007: 24,000 per month; 2008: 25,500 per month.

If this decline continues I don't know where we'll end up. 

Ernest William: "As yet not one of the world economies have claimed to be "on top" of the financial disaster that the US capitalists have foisted upon them."

Wow. And to think, only a few weeks ago the USA was being "overtaken" by China as the global economic superpower.

Malcolm B., are you fair dinkum?

As yet not one of the world economies have claimed to be "on top" of the financial disaster that the US capitalists have foisted upon them.

Yet, like your felllow conservatives in Australia, you have nothing but negative criticism of our democratically elected government.

While you and your namesake have no end of abuse of everything that the Rudd government has done or tried to do, not one of you has given an achievable alternatiive.  What is your objective?

We should not listen to people who complain about everything but, have no alternative.

This is to help the Australian people?

The capitalist Malcolm Turnbull "New Order" have claimed that everything - yes everything - that the Rudd government has done; has tried to do - has said or has explained - is too fast - too slow - should have known - has no financial sense.

This is to help the Australian people?

And yet, this situation caused by the "free to perform" capitalists of America, has the best financial brains in the entire world trying to find a soft landing, not only for the millions of suffering Americans, but for the rest of the world as well.

But Turnbull/Bishop knew the hidden problems even before they voted to introduce the Rudd measures!  Or did they? Fair dinkum.

When will the conservative media (who are still the makers or destroyers of the governments of US style democracies) simply ask the US counterpart merchant bankers in Australia - what would you have done?

Why don't they ask - because neither Rudd nor Obama nor Turnbull can predict a future under the present total lack of confidence in the entire world.

The Rudd Labor (or whatever) government has acted consistently with courage, decisive action, honesty and an ability to maintain an air of controlled confidence which one would expect in a time of war.

The big L liberals cannot restrain themselves from historic political facts that the governments who are in power when a recession comes upon them (let alone a depression), even when they have no responsibilty for the disaster, the popular opinion turns to the "back pocket".

The present enormous problems currently facing Australia must be remembered as having their birth in the very type of extreme capitalism which motivates the current federal opposition. 

Think and reason:

What can be gained by allowing the fear tactics of the guilty capitalist fraternaity to encourage a fear that your government cannot handle the problem?

What if it was a time of war against terrorism or poverty or even invasion?

President-elect Barack Obama stated categorically that politics is superseded by the need for a concerted effort to overcome this problem, and the Republicans have agreed.

Can we expect any less of our citizens?

Hang your head Malcolm B.

NE OUBLIE.

Well I must say it was polite of Malcolm to replace albatross with "bacillus". 

And never fear Malcolm, one day in the distant future archaeologists will dig up your abode and discover greatness there in.

Such greatest will be revealed to the entire planet, as such our world will become a far better place.

There will be followers, a few at first but like flies to dog shit they will come and soon the few will be billions. Billions of deliriously happy people all rejoicing in the greatness of their beloved and very clever Father, the all knowing and all just, our saviour - Claude.

Well Malcolm this is a testament to your abilities. What did it take, ten minutes to rip it off? I know how much time you had and it must have involved a phone call. No wonder I couldn't get anything but an engaged signal. The purpose of my attempted call has been fulfilled anyway.

You don't agree with me? Yes you do Malcolm; read all that I wrote.

I'm not in a combative mood, rather the opposite and see myself as a head banger. I saw fault on all sides.

Arrogance? Probably, since the weight of accusations against me on that score have been around for almost as long as I can remember and cannot be discounted.

Backhanded compliment? You might have to reconsider since I was comparing you to myself. Two grumpy old men that do not suffer fools gladly, seen all that shit before etc.

Blind Freddy? That Malcolm is dismissive and while that should have been the case, it simply wasn't to anyone inside. It was the outsiders that could see what was happening. I'm very much, an outsider.

I have been absent from Webdiary in the past few weeks. I am happy with the political trifecta of the last 12 months. First Jim Turnour in Leichhardt, then Rudd in Canberra and now Obama in the US. The political cards have been falling the right way up for a change.

Climate Change is now well on the agenda and a few are even seeing Peak Oil as our next economic challenge. Most of my political goals have been achieved, leaving me with only a few windmills to tilt at.

I am about to leave on a holiday to Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, (Castlemaine) and Perth for Christmas - my wife and I are busy spending Rudd's Christmas bonus to keep Australia afloat.

Webdiary is great because we can drop in and out as we please, we can participate when we feel fire in our bellies, and just sit and watch at times when we don't want to enter the fray.

I am happy with the format. I think less moderation, including the number of comments allowed each day, would be better. That would put more pressure on contributors to be responsible. Maybe a warning or two and banning for a month or two would be a deterrent to those who abuse the privilege.

It has been a great year and Webdiary has played a big part in this year for me.

I have enjoyed our chats and meeting all our Webdiarists if only online.

Thanks to all the editors and people who put the work in behind the scenes.

I will try to log on from time to time while travelling.

Have a merry Christmas and very happy new year.

Fiona: Safe and happy travels, John.

Malcolm B Duncan: "I also disagree with Kathy Farrelly’s objection to abuse: the more the merrier."

You would say that, you old bastard, you! (Pokes tongue out, then heads for the hills.)