Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Editorial Policy
Margo redrafted these guidelines for the new site, and we'll stick by them, subject to your input:
G'day. Since I started Webdiary in 2000, I've envisaged it as a space for civil discourse between Australians of different political viewpoints – a democratic conversation. I was heavily influenced in this idea by my experience covering Pauline Hanson's 1998 election campaign, when it became heartbreakingly clear to me that Australia was two nations, the inhabitants of which seemed unable to understand what the other was talking about, let alone have a chat about it. I wrote about this in my book Off the Rails: the Pauline Hanson Trip (see Chapter 18, We're all poor lean people and we're bangin' on your gate).
Thus, Webdiary's Charter states, in part, that its mission is "to help meet the unmet demand of some Australians for conversations on our present and our future, and to spark original thought and genuine engagement with important issues which effect us all, to link thinking Australians whoever they are and wherever they live and to insist that thinking Australians outside the political and economic establishment have the capacity to contribute to the national debate".
I am a small l liberal by inclination. I hold my views strongly, and one of them is that people with different views to me have the right to be respectfully heard and engaged with on Webdiary. To that end, in 2003 I published Webdiary ethics, which adapts the Media Alliance Code of Ethics for Journalists to meet the online experience and sets out my expectations of Webdiary contributors ethically. Here are my expectations of Webdiary contributors:
As a journalist I have ethical obligations to readers; as a contributor you do not. Still, there are a few guidelines I'd like you to follow.
1. If you don't want to use your real name, use a nom de plume and briefly explain, for publication, why you don't want to use your real name. Please send me your real name on a confidential basis if you choose to use a nom de plume. I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used.
2. Disclose affiliations which you think could reasonably be perceived to affect what you write. For example, if you are writing about politics, disclose your membership of a political party.
3. Don't plagiarise, that is don't use the ideas of others without telling us where they came from, and don't copy the writings of others and pass them off as your own. There is no need. Put quotes around the words of other people, and tell us who they are and where you got them from. If you've used online sources for your contributions, include the links so others can follow them up.
4. Be truthful. Don't invent 'facts'. If you're caught out, expect to be corrected in Webdiary
5. Robust debate is great, but don't indulge in personal attacks on other contributors.
6. Write in the first person. Remember, we're having a conversation here.
[Added August 2007] It follows from the guidelines above that a question on the identity of other Webdiarists should be taken up with the editors, who will make whatever checks they consider necessary, but such questions will not be allowed within published comments, as it may be necessary to protect the identity of some Webdiarists, and in the classic double-bind of these things, answering only some questions on identity openly exposes the ones we can't answer openly.
From 2000 to August 2004 Webdiary's process for reader participation was through emails to me, which I cut and paste into my Webdiary entries. It was a cumbersome process, to say the least, as more and more emails came in. Sometimes, when interest was very high, like post-Tampa and during the led up to war in Iraq, I couldn't even read them all, and advised Webdiarists accordingly.My policy was to run all emails critical of me or Webdiary except those which were obscene or content free abuse. Apart from that, I picked emails relevant to the topics I was pursuing at the time and did not run emails which I felt breached Webdiary's ethics.
In September 2004 Fairfax handed over all responsibility for Webdiary to me via a new discrete Webdiary self-publishing system as part of my move from employee to contractor (see New Webdiary, frustrated Webdiarists). The new system provided for reader comments, and reader contributions exploded.
The new system challenged my editorial policy on reader contributions, and I struggled to adapt for months. At first, my policy was skewed heavily towards free speech whatever the downside. Some Webdiarists stopped commenting, telling me the space no longer felt safe due to the level of personal abuse I published. Thus, my free speech bent started to impact adversely on my goal for Webdiary, to facilitate civil democratic conversation on important issues for Australia among people of differing views.
Early this year the comments volume became so great that I could no longer both process comments and write for Webdiary, and I employed long time Webdiarist Jack Robertson to be Webdiary's comment manager. Jack did the hard work tightening up our publishing guidelines to make the space safer for all participants and ensure that debate was civil. He even instituted a temporary 'red card' system to force the issue. Jack drafted discussion guidelines, called a 'no abuse trial', and reported to readers on how it was working. Much commentary from readers ensued. See Jack R to pull beers at Club Chaos, Webdiary discussion guidelines and Webdiary 'no abuse' trial - week one.
Here are the guidelines I've carried over to our permanent home:
Posts that contain personal abuse of another Webdiarist will not be published. Serial offenders may be permanently banned.
'Personal abuse' is a difficult and subjective notion, but the following are likely to be so:
a. any criticism of a Webdiarist's actual or imagined physical appearance or characteristic (voice, inherent intellect), or non-physical qualities over which they have no immediate control (writing ability, education level, life or work experience);
b. posts which contain sneering or foul-language criticism of views and opinions, as opposed to witty and pithy critiques;
c. criticisms that depend for their sting even obliquely on a Webdiarist's specific (known or imagined) sexuality, gender, race, religion or nationality;
d. most criticisms that assign a pejorative adjective or noun to a person rather than an adjective or an adverb to that person's actions (including the action of expressing of an opinion);
Another useful guide to apply when deciding whether or not your post is 'personally abusive' is to ask yourself: 'would I be prepared to make this comment face-to-face to my fellow Webdiarist if we were standing at the bar of Club Chaos?'
Since then, I've found that more women have joined the conversation, and that debate has become more civil. The idea is simple – respect other people's points of view, and strive to engage with them on the merits. Passion is cool, and so is respect. If you think you've been unfairly edited, or that we've wrongly refused to publish your comments, please feel free to query our decision by posting a comment. This sometimes happens, and leads to an online discussion of the meaning and interpretation of the guidelines.
Next year I will set up a system whereby Webdiarists who feel hard done by can complain to someone other than me. That person, a Webdiary Ombudsman, will have their own section where he or she would publish non-frivolous complaints, my response, and their views on the matter. That way we can flesh out the guidelines as different issues arise.
Since September 2004 I have banned several people from Webdiary when I am satisfied that they are not commenting in good faith, but rather to destroy the safety of the space for the civil debate I'm seeking to foster. I will also ban people who make allegations of unethical conduct by me and refuse to either substantiate or withdraw their claims on request. I am a member of the Media Alliance, and for several years I've published the Alliance Code of Ethics for journalists and invited people who believe I have breached the code to complain to the Alliance, which has a process for determining ethical complaints against its members. Given that this process is in place, I won't put up with cheap allegations of unethical behaviour from me. I take such allegations very seriously, and expect those who make them to do the same. Respect for others includes respect for me. Banned posters will also be able to complain to Webdiary's Ombudsman.
Fiona Reynolds and Richard Tonkin moderate Webdiary comments. We do not delete any comment posted to Webdiary, and the statistics of how many comments we don't publish and why are provided regularly by Webdiary's managing director David Roffey in comments to his management updates). To date we have published 97% of comments posted to the independent Webdiary.
Webdiary will not publish comments or host discussion on the following matters:
1. Denial of the existence of the holocaust.
2. Allegations that a Western power or powers were behind the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001
3. "False flag" theories.
Why these three? It isn't just because of the content, but also because experience of these debates tells us that in fact no debate is possible: the two (or more) sides endlessly repeat the same arguments to which the other side isn't listening. There are plenty of sites around devoted to these subjects where the interminable repetition is welcome: go debate them there. When you're there, remember that the complete lack of any evidence just shows how well the conspiracy is working. Obviously it can be difficult to draw the line, particularly when debating 9/11, and that can lead to some inconsistencies between editors, but that's life.
=====================
Discussion guidelines are always a work in progress, and your input is always welcome.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
hi Maurice....game plan? Victoria has voting machines
Hi Maurice, you have said what has been making me fill with growing anger since I watched East Timor unfold and then the lies again.
How do we do our civic duty to protect our nation from the present criminals and corrupt who lie and decieve and do deals to keep power, even war, when most Aussies are too apathetic or naive to understand the picture?
Victoria now has touch vote machines. The end is nigh.
global awareness for the preservation of all life
United Global Call “Preservation of life for all life’s sake”
I have always believed that in order to seek the truth one must sacrifice everything for the truth, but one must know oneself before they make that step. This is my step.
I was born in an era of relentless turmoil, one that still exists to this very day. An era where governments formed secret organizations, deceiving their people with notions of national security and the impending doom of terrorism, that will one day bring the fall of mankind by delivering the innocent to an evil that knows no mercy. Governments that have given false illusion by claiming strength through purity, a purity that involves covert assassinations based on power struggles and the greed of a selected few whose only intentions are for the betterment of their own.
That history has shown us the dark side of man is not only blatantly evident, but also only recently even more so evident because of leaders chosen, those in the past and those present today. Leaders who seem to follow the steps of men that (we have learnt from history) have brought nothing but horror and atrocities. We have become so aware of our nations historical misuse of power through evidence of events throughout mans civilization, that now we are faced with the fear of acting against them, because of the very reason that alone we do not stand a chance.
That those allied with such dark shadowy characters, whom claim purity through strength and use honor like a coat of arms, just as the knights of the crusade used during their puritanical conquest throughout the Arab nations and all throughout Europe and Africa, leaving only a history of unremorseful bloodshed - can only be questioned by their fealty to these self proclaimed leaders of men who claim their actions are for the good of all mankind.
But in searching history and its examples of man vs. man – for the sake of defining a leader of mankind – we have come to a point of breaking, mentally, physically and spiritually. The people are voicing out now, but no one is interested, no one is listening, no one cares, at least not those who we have claimed to represent us. Yet a country and its people should not be defined by the actions of a reckless, renegade and roguish leader, nor should they be defined by those who have claimed fealty to these leaders. No, that responsibility rests solely on them. For it is they who have taken up the vocation as a representative of the people, their people, the very thing that defines that nation.
When these leaders and those pledging fealty to them have become untouchable to the voices of their people, then it is only just that they are held accountable for their actions. Actions, which demise and constrain the truest human quality, the quality of being humane for the sake of humanity. Too much has prevailed in our history for us to turn away from; an evil passed down by generations of those who do evil. The darkness is spreading and this darkness is rising, greater than man has ever witnessed.
It is slowly surrounding us, devouring everything we cherish, everything we worship and everything we hold dearly and close to our hearts. It is a darkness that will soon envelop us and extinguish the light that we know as life, if not physically then most surely within us all. This darkness has been fed by the complacency of man, the apathy that has slowly crept into our beds whilst we slept. It has made us comfortable with the everyday needs and wants of our demanding society. A society structured purposefully for that reason. We have become accustomed and institutionalized by the overwhelming security of money-at-hand. Our hunger for an easy life without effort, will or motivation to work for, has become a bottomless pit incapable of sustaining, making it all too easy for greed to sink its teeth into us, whispering the words;
“It’s not enough!”
These elements of beings that govern our societies, structuring and providing us with these comforts, have clenched their hands tight around our necks, like shackles to slaves.
The creation of religion, an ingenious idea spawned by mans own imagination and frustration to bring some tangible meaning to their existence, has brought us no salvation and plunged us deeper into hate for one another. Societies and organizations that have plotted and planned devious atrocities, by means of deception in order to gain power over the weak. Men, we have chosen blindly to represent us and lead us, have seated themselves on thrones longer than needed, greedily exhausting the resources of our planet and its people, just to empower themselves into a vice-grip position within our governments.
Plotting amongst each other, showing slight of hand to the public whilst pointing the finger of blame to an enemy that doesn’t exist. When the public has reached the end of their patience, demanding for the justice and peace that was promised, another enemy is conjured up. One greater than its predecessor. And many more innocent souls are flung into the chaos of war. Sacrifices planned and executed for the greater cause of those in power, clenching and tightening their grip on the nations and their people. Incidents staged and managed at the expense of innocent lives. Governments dealing death cards out to lives with families awaiting their non-arrival. All for a cause they believe is for the greater good of man…which man?
Self proclaimed heroes, martyrs of a world torn apart by their own manifestations, their own creations, by means of mass manipulation; fascism, hatred, fanaticism…the list goes on, as well as the ever-growing, ever-spreading and ever multiplying and branching institution of the Christian faith. An institution that has sold itself to politics and governmental beauracrasy; lost its ways and become servant to the ever-popular values of gold and power. Numbers! Numbers! Numbers!
“The more we claim to have, the greater we are.”
Now we are amongst those we have chosen to lead whom will surely deliver us into the hands of God. But it is not a God of peace nor is it one of mercy. It is a God of war and chaos, a God of severity. It is a God that is the antithesis of the one we have for so long felt within. The very existence of this preserves the life within us all, bringing us to know right from wrong. Preservation of life does not mean to take the life of one in place of another, nor does it mean the life of one for the greater good of the many, let alone for the greater good of a kind.
We can not sit idly by any longer and feel what we have been shown, taught since birth, exposed in a manipulative manner by the media and promised by so many leaders whom have only secured peace for themselves. The bloodshed, that has been senseless for centuries, must end and it must end here and now if we are to thrive and progress, humanely, as an advancing civilization. Complimenting the planet by reflecting the very nature it embodies and has revealed to us for millions of years. The very innocence and beauty that it exemplifies, its inner strength and versatility through adaptation is within all of us. For the good of all of us.
The tranquility, peace and all its unpredictabilities that brings balance to the very existence of what we know as the life’s cycle is a part of us all and we a part of it. Nothing greater and nothing lesser. Yet the balance has been tipped and there are those of us whom wish it to turn in their favor. This is the chaos that we have complacently and apathetically let devour us. Do not fool yourselves, to stand up against the tyranny that shadows us now, means to lose what we have gained in material worth, but there is so much more to gain at such a small cost.
At the end we shall be standing and it won’t be alone. We cannot, nor should we not be led by any one being. It must be together that we stand against these over powered governing forces. Together, united, can we demand the halt to the deception and the end to the creation of all those whom have contributed to greed, fascism, fanaticism, hatred and lust for power over a world that belongs to no one, but can be shared peacefully by all, equally and unconditionally.
Living and choosing to live in peace with love for another and respect towards each other, keeping sacred the one true belief above all other beliefs; the preservation of life for life’s sake. The well-being for all humanity in an environment that is safe for ourselves and our future generations.
We have tried endlessly, to the point of exhaustion, living in demand of material values and abiding by the code of ‘an eye for an eye’ never really bowing to the needs of our soul’s salvation, that now would be a time for a change. The future, if there is to be one, of our children demands it. To change now would be to have nothing to lose and everything to gain, but if we choose to continue as we are, letting things stay as they are, then we stand to lose everything we have gained, for nothing at all.