Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Eds I'd like to be surer there were a consistent classification system in place for the rejects, and (I know this is agonising when the priority is building traffic and momentum for the new WD) more polite but constructive heavy handedness around "off-topic" stuff. The ID debate' degenerated to a pagans v christians slanging match in no time at all. I think that's a great topic for debate - but in its own forum, with an extra large disk space allocation...

ed Kerri: Hi David. In this thread over here, Margo said: "I have a plan to resolve Webdiarists' queries on comments editing in a more transparent way. Leave it with me."

I've been surfing tonight looking for web sites that discuss moderating forums like ours. And ya know, it's not a common topic - it's a new field of communication. Webdiary is breaking new ground and all of us are learning as we go along.

David, I'm impressed by the quantity of quality contributions we've received on the independent Webdiary to date. As you show nearly 99% of the contributions posted for publication are published. And the kudos for that goes not to us 'publishers', but to the thousands of Webdiary readers and posters who are informative, tolerant and willing to contribute. And of course to the article writers who inspire them. In my role as comments manager I thank you all.

Wouldn't registration with a verifiable email address and a 'questionable content' button for readers to alert about, well, questionable content be a lot easier than, just say, having to check and edit every post? This way you could let posts go up automatically (shortening the time for replies) as opposed to this current editing arrangement which takes up both a large amount of time and manpower?

ed Kerri: manpower Stuart? I am sure that the last time certain members of the Webdiary team looked, it wasn't manpower behind our work...

But I register your point and it is something for consideration on the new permanent site where certain 'permissions' (program term) may be allowed to registered members if we adopt a registration (note: not subscription) model. But such a feature would not save us from the potential of legal liability if slanderous damage was done in the short time an inappropriate post was up before someone notified the moderators to the ‘questionable content’ on the site.

Hi guys, I'm new to the Webdiary world, and I'm confused about why comments are edited before being posted. Surely that defeats the purpose of having an interactive forum/blog?

ed Kerri: Hi Debra, I would be interested to know why you think moderating comments "defeats the purpose of having an interactive forum/blog".

New to the Webdiary world, Debra? Surely as a Tim Blair regular you know all about Margolia by now. I agree that moderating comments is less than ideal, but then so is Tim's custom of banning dissent.

1 - Can you be sued for slander for something you neither authorised nor agreed with? Can telephone companies be sued for having their phones used to communicate libel or slanderous comments? Same sort of thing applies here, I would imagine. If it was an editorial or article which you allowed and authorised, its a different issue, but just simple comment? Indeed, I think a higher likelyhood of charges sticking comes from anything which slips past the editing of comment, because the administrators or moderators have authorised the comment.

But thats just me.

2 - 'And as for this 'manpower Stuart? I am sure that the last time certain members of the Webdiary team looked, it wasn't manpower behind our work..'

There is a manpower to womenpower ratio...

No, really, its a phrase, and just because it might get up the nose of a few old fembots doesn't change the meaning nor the intent of the term.

ed Kerri: Stuart, on your first point. Talk to someone far more knowledgeable than me about the intricacies of Australia's current and suggested defamation laws and you may better understand the concerns of any publication.

Hi back at you, Kerri.

I've no issue with moderating comments, I just don't see that there is a need to editthe comments. Couldn't that lead to the possibility of confusing what the poster wished to say?

Taking the time out to correct grammar can also lead to a loss of immediacy in some of the commentary.

I can appreciate a desire to polish up what is being said, but that could be seen as spin-doctoring, and gives an impression of censorship.

I could be wrong, but I see blogging as about the only true, egalitarian medium for communication. I can say what I wish and if I garble the message somewhat, so be it.

This isn't to say I'm against moderation of comments - far from it. There is occasionally a need to delete overly offensive commentary, particularly when it is serving no purpose apart from wasting bandwidth and causing needless distraction. Trolls and bots are both cases for that.

ed Kerri: I agree Debra, blogging is an egalitarian medium for communication which is why people like yourself have a blog. Webdiary is more than a blog. It is a professional on-line publication in the developing world of the new media that seeks to publish professional-quality input from both its contributors and its posters. And with all due respect to both parties, it is the needs of the readers who take precedence. As editors and moderators, we assist the readers by presenting the posts and contributions in the most professional way possible. Not everyone likes their grammar and punctuation altered as it can be seen to interfere with their personal style… but if it makes the post easier and clearer to understand without changing the essential meaning or opinion submitted by the poster, then we reserve the right to make those changes, for the benefit of the reader and the discussion in general.

Look at recent US and Australian court decisions around Kazaa, and P2P file sharing in general where the software makers were held liable for copyright infringement by their users. Without being fully boned up on the facts of those cases, it appears the onus of control has shifted in recent times. WD will need to be mindful of this.

Stuart, in about 1997 this mob tried to bring in legislation to make ISPs responsible (legally) for anything that went through their ISP service (web sites, news groups, emails... the lot). Happily the legislation didn't get up... but with this Senate... who knows.

Is Margo in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation? If not perhaps it is worth touching base with them?

Wikimedia have plans to produce a decentralised media network. (along the lines of bittorrent or gnutella?) This was told to me in response to a question on Slashdot.

In the long term, Webdiary might be able to migrate across to this decentralised media network?

Apart from spreading resource requirements, decentalisation might also minimise legal issues by making it obvious that each writer is responsible for their own comments?

ed Kerri: She is now. Thanks John.

Debra Kerri said most of it but one of Margo's key concerns is that this is not just a blog and it is about quality and professionalism, that includes presentation and grammar. No one said people can't do their own blogs but this isn't the place for raw blogging.

Kerri yeah, Margo would really like manpower ;-) as would you. Ah, the delights of language.

David: thanks for the update. We've done very well I think given the actual issues involved in the changeover and most Weddiary people seem to have moved with us. We now need to find more ways of sharing Webdiary with the larger world/audience.

It is exciting to be part of this new phase of Webdiary and citizen news/opinion alternatives.

Given the items cropping up on the national agenda right now we couldn't have picked a "better" time to launch the new Webdiary.

And a big thanks to Kerri and Hamish for all the hard work (and everyone else in the back room too of course).

Go Webdiary! And good luck to Margo for this weekend's discussions. We'll all be thinking of you :)

I wrote most of these comments in response to a post, where an individual poster claimed another was dishonest. However, I've done a little chopping and changing, and I'm posting it here, as I thought it might assist in understanding what it is that we do as editors, and why we do it. The comments were made in relation to that corker of a topic - Israel.

It is right to say we (Editors, Margo and Webdiary generally) cop flack over the whole Israel/Palestine issue. Are we being anti-Semitic by letting through comments criticising the wall? What about random accusations of other posters 'hating Jews'? But we persevere because we want people to talk, to engage and so forth.

But it’s important to remember that this is a very fraught topic, and a highly emotional one to many people. I haven’t been involved in censoring anything around the topic to date, but the team did remove comments pertaining to Holocaust denial when they arose. We do not want commentators to 'stir the pot' just for the sake of it, or insult others. We want to keep it civil and accessible, while welcoming a diversity of viewpoints.

So when one commentator accuses another of being dishonest, when factual error is presented as evidence, I think this is taking it too far. Charges of anti-Semitism are bandied about and often used in lieu of a good argument. Similarly, Israel is often brought up as a distraction from an alternate argument. Factual error abounds - I’ve studied Israel for years, and still feel I’m only scratching the surface. And getting away from the sheer volume of knowledge that you need to get your head around, interpretive issues then arise. For example, was the Balfour Declaration a binding document or not? What the absence of 'the' in Declaration 242 actually mean? Many people are going to see the same things differently - this is just the nature of the beast.

What’s that line in The Castle, where the lawyer is arguing a constitutional argument, and when asked specifically what law, he says it’s the 'vibe of the thing'? Sometimes I think commentators on both sides go more with the 'vibe' than they do with facts.

So long as we can keep it civil and above board, then I think we’ll be doing all right. And just remember if you can’t contain the anger, and want to snipe back with an insult - walk away, and come back to the response later. The most articulate arguments are ones that avoid labels and 'play the ball' if you will.

Oscar Werring: "I agree that moderating comments is less than ideal, but then so is Tim's custom of banning dissent."

Unless you don't agree that 'banning trolls' is equivalent to 'banning dissent'. Have you ever tried to post 'dissent' on TB's site... in a mature way?

"Your comment will appear on Webdiary after approval by a moderator."

Very well. Is the moderator a 'moderate'? We'll see.

Ed Hamish: Follow the guidelines, and you won't have any trouble. One thing you might notice is that a full name is required. The next time without one will be 'no post'.

I think that one was specifically aimed at illegal things, such as porn, bad kiddy stuff that I dont really want to get into, all that sort of things. I think it was supposed to make ISP's tighten their belts and actually moniter what they shoot around. The legislation was constricting, but thats the way it goes, I guess. A better way to eliminate such material, or at least crack down upon it, I don't know. Maybe there is a better way, but I don't know it.

Do I post over on Tim Blair? Absolutely, but this is my first time in the Webdiary World.

Kerri, I can appreciate what you are saying, but surely you are being somewhat condescending when referring to 'people like myself'. Who are the 'people like me' who need to be edited and grammar-checked?

As far as Webdiary being more than a blog and heralding a new generation of online reporting, I agree that it's an excellent goal.

BUT... from where I sit, the implied censorship of having moderators vetting all posts before approval is surely a step back into the world of George Orwell and his Ministry of Truth. If there is no freedom of expression (within reason) then surely, you are heading towards a BlogPolice State. When you present eveything in a professional way, perhaps the intended message gets lost in translation. That is my concern.

Ed Hamish: Who do you think we are Debra? The United Nations? The Department of Education? There's a huge, diverse market of blogs. We run this in a transparent, consistent way. The community of people who come here speaks for the demand for this particular format. Should every product in the market be identical? These are rhetorical questions, as I have no interest in engaging further. Move on or keep contributing.

I am also uncomfortable with the idea that your comments here are acceptable only with a real name. Yes, my name is Debra Franklin, and it always will be. I just prefer to use Nilknarf as a handle. I also post in other fora as fluffi and have done for years. I have yet to be taken for someone in need of correction. Debate me, yes, argue with me, but don't take me back to school and amend my typos.

I think you are not giving enough credit to your contributors. That's all.

Ed Hamish: yep, a full name has been a criterion on Webdiary for over five years. That is the last time we will manually change your name. Please read the guidelines, and decide whether this is the forum for you.

Pardon me for asking but what does 'transparent' mean about editing? I should have thought that even if a piece of glass is see-through it still is a hard barrier.

Is the glass ceiling a bad metaphor then?

Being an old fart myself, Zeppenwolf, I think maturity is terribly overrated. One thing I do like about Webdiary is the loony lefties are regularly called to account for their excesses. Over at TB’s, however, anyone attempting to curb the rantings of the rabid righties is attacked as an attention-seeking lefty troll.

Putting it as immaturely as I can, Andrea and her chums can give it but they can’t take it. You haven’t noticed?

Is the moderator a moderate, Zeppie? The great thing is, it doesn’t matter.

Debra says: “I think you are not giving enough credit to your contributors” in response to first what she thinks is a restriction of “freedom of expression (within reason)” and secondly for not being able to use pseudonyms.

Sorry, but I have to jump in here. Debra, if you’re making a mistake here, it’s having admitted that you are new to Webdiary, you are making quick conclusions about the outcomes that the guidelines deliver.

I have been following and occasionally posting to Webdiary for years. Messages sure get through, including the ones complaining about deletions, and individual styles are obvious. You get to pick posters by content and style very quickly, with all their agendas, thoughts and musing in a hugely engaging mix of styles. This is no MacDonald’s here.

Full names are one of Webdiary’s greatest features. Naming yourself, outing yourself, is in fact the biggest standard setter of all. It actually gives all credit to the contributors, for they have to answer to themselves, not just the ether.

"If I had a hammer..."

Web Diary Management (sounds like the thinking person's "One Nation").
As you may recall, I am a regular reader. Have noted comments on this, and in other threads re the hoary old chestnut of 'anti-semitism'; also Antony Loewenstein's site and his battle with Danby et al concerning certain home-truths re Israel and Palestine, via other bloggers and Crikey.

Would dearly love to shake his hand - he is a fine bloke and deserves as much support as any one I can think of, even including Margo.

But his site is a fair 'bitch' to sign up for (yeah, yeah; I know- 'sexist' - am getting too old to care about pc, so will use the term because I just lost a letter I tried to send to the bloke) and if reads this site once in a while he will know another person appreciates his stand. Hope he doesn't end up like anti-nazi Pastor Neimoller did, for daring to warn of a situation as it is.

You're wrong if you think that Andrea over at Tim Blair's blog bans if there's a hint of left wing dissent.

She bans trolls. That is, people that come in looking to kick up a stink. She's actually pretty good at picking those who disagree but go about listing their objections in a civilised manner, and those that come in looking for mischief whilst utilising a transient veneer of civility. I have never seen an honest and polite objector banned.

Recently, I disagreed with something TB had posted. He and I had quite a long discussion about it in the comments thread, and we didn't end up agreeing. Although he did end up blogrolling me. Interesting way of clamping down on dissent, huh?

I wouldn't describe all of Webdiary's 'objectors' as 'honest and polite', James Waterton. And I suspect some are even 'looking for mischief.' What the hell, apparently they're welcome anyway.

Recently, I honestly and politely suggested on TB's blog that some federal agencies, particularly FEMA, had to share some of the blame for the botched New Orleans rescue effort. I was quickly warned that any more of that 'dumb lefty' stuff would get me banned. Soon enough I was banned after reacting to someone else's taunts.

OK, it's his blog and he can do what he likes, and it was nice of him to 'blogroll' you (love to know what the argument was about) but please don't kid yourself. It's a right-wing blog, and all but the most obsequious lefties soon end up banned.

Maybe it's the wrong place at the wrong time, but it needs to be said, the backwards ordering of posts is bull***t!

Webdiary isn't a 'blog', but the sentiments of other sites are easier to follow thorough their postings being listed in chronological order. It's much harder to skim a site if everything appears backwards.

The argument that 'reverse-order' promotes more rapid response is invalidated by a moderated website, so why not (without 'pandering' generate a more 'people friendly environment' by running posts from past to present?

The current order is much more poster-friendly than reader-friendly. The efforts of so many Webdiary writers deserve the maximum attention that can be cultivated by their missives. Chronological order would promote access to a wider readership. I'll shut up now.

Look, I disagree with most on here, about most things.

I don't post on TB blog. I think that people who are on the left of things are given more latitude. They can get away with more. They more often than not don't need to provide evidence of their outlandish claims.

Having said that, I think I've only ever had one post totally knocked back, and a handful edited for content, so I'm not overly concerned.

I will say I would rather the posts not be moderated, and a 'report problem post' thingo installed. I think it would allow for more real time contributions and allow the 'flow' of the discussions to be much better.

And it would save a heap of MANPOWER!!

I agree with Richard Tonkin's point about ordering of posts. Another problem is coming back the next day and trying to find where you're up to in a long thread... can't think of a fix to that one, apart from starting a new sub-thread every (say) 100 posts.

J Wilshaw I think some moderators have been guilty of letting their 'lefty' inclinations affect their judgment, but I've noticed it happening less and less, which I hope is a trend.

Ed Hamish: our efforts are genuine Andy, but we are humans and different ones at that. Nice to hear that we're getting there.

On the post-order matter. All comment welcome, but once again we ask you to be patient as we build out permanent site. There will be many differences, and your ongoing feedback is all read carefully..

I think the mix of moderation and tolerance on Webdiary is about right. I see no reason to publish material which is substance free apart from personal attack and insult.

Whenever I want intolerance and insult I go over to Tim Blair.

I hope those posters from Tim's site on this thread appreciate that they are able to make comments of substance here, while Andrew Harris bans anyone she thinks is vaguely 'left'.

You can be as bland, civil, and reasoned as you like on Tim's blog, and you'll be banned anyway just for your political views.

I have to admit though that I'm glad Tim's blog exists, and that it promotes Webdiary so heavily. For one thing it gives everyone a good look at the kind of intolerant, abusive and destructive world that the rampant right would like to force us all into.

BTW, isn't 'Manpower' a group of male strippers, and isn't 'staff-time' both more accurate and just as easy to write?

Greg Hartnett: of course Tim Blair's blog trends right. No one ever suggested anything different. The other thing you must understand about his blog is that it isn't overly serious. This is a factor that a lot of TB's opponents miss. It's not about pushing the agenda. More often than not, it's a giant piss take of the agenda-pushing efforts of those ideologically opposed to TB and his readers. It's quite a rough and tumble blog. TB's blog doesn't have wheelchair access for the intellectually disabled. Those that come in foaming at the mouth, trying to set everyone to rights tend to get flamed by the commentariat before they get banned. And they get banned because of the way they respond to the regulars. Think of a country pub. If a newcomer arrives, stirring up the regulars into an argument with both sides getting dirty - who do you think the landlord is going to kick out? Even those that post civilly, but are there to set everyone straight get whacked over the head if they are dredging up the same old crap we read from those types day in, day out. We're not an overly patient bunch when it comes to axe-grinders.

However, on the odd occasion I've seen a dissenter come in and post something new, contrarian and constructive, the majority of the commentariat respond in kind.

Yes Bryan Law, 'manpower' is, or at least was, a group of male strippers. Stuart obviously momentarily mistook Jamie Durie for a Webdiary comments editor.

ed Kerri: Polly, Bryan, Stuart - If somebody enlisted Manpower to help me in the Webdiary 'back room', I would not complain... as long as at least half the troupe can spell and the rest can peel my grapes.

James,

Excuse me, but which TB blog are you actually referring to? It seems to me that TB and his coterie of camp followers are mightily sensitive to dissent, and waste no time in shutting it down. You may call it a piss-take, and maybe so, until such point that someone turns the tables on them, and God forbid if someone not of their ilk gets the upper hand.

They're nothing more than a bunch of scaredy cats as far as I have seen. You know as well as I do that you would never be able to make an anti-right meta comment such as your own on this page, over there, but webdiary is populated by reasonable and informed people and allows it - I suspect thats why you are here.

Actually, Michael Lines, alternative points of view are sometimes given a great deal of airing at TB's blog. For example, some time ago Bryan Law felt he was banned unfairly. He sent an e-mail to TB listing his complaints and grievances with individual members of the TB commentariat. Tim posted the whole e-mail. Bryan's point of view was elevated above the the rough and tumble of the comments thread and placed into the body of the blog! What more does Bryan want? How much more room can be made for his point of view? You can find the relevant blog post here.

At the end of the day, Bryan was commenting on a broadly right-wing (in its many incarnations), and he should expect to be strongly countered. And, as TB's blog is quite combatative, when we get a delicate snowflake like Bryan Law coming in and getting huffy, we don't pull our punches. No apologies there; that's the nature of the beast. TB's lack of political correctness and the blog's abrasiveness and realism is what makes it so refreshing. And so amusing, as it happens.

Another point I'd like to make is that Webdiary contributors and posters seem to spend a lot of time patting themselves on the back for their inclusiveness. It's blatantly obvious to me that Webdiary does not cater for all moderate views and political persuasions. Stop pretending that Webdiary is anything more than an agenda-holding, multi-contributor blog. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but nothing new is going on here - despite all the delusions of grandeur.

Polly Bush, who said I was mistaken?

Guest Ed Polly: Stuart, you've caught us out. Yes, we do plan to backyard blitz this temp site with renovations for our permanent Club Chaos home, better homes and gay boys style of course. Oh my stars ...

James Waterton I’m glad you think that having a letter published on the actual Tim Blair blog is an antidote to censorship, but please concede that I had no ability to respond to any comments that were posted in reply to it. It's the ability to argue that's censored.

I don’t mind having my ideas attacked, or even having criticism of a personal nature directed against me. I even enjoy much of the humour which is cultivated on Tim’s blog, and admit that some of it is very, very funny.

However there are some commenters over there who are gratuitously and violently NASTY, who are not funny and who choose to attack and vilify not me, but my family. Check this out for intellectual stimulation –

“Are you saying that Heidelberg is banging Bryla’s wife? Wow! She told me I was the only one..... *sob*” from “Quentin George”, followed by

“Well, I’m suggesting that it’s possible. I don’t know for certain, I don’t have a video camera in Bryla’s bedroom. SHUDDER!!!!!!” from “The Real Jeff S.”

Quotes are from here.

Come on James tell me this is an example of the tolerance and good humour that can be found on Tim’s clubby blog. Tell me it’s the standard you’d like to see more of in public debate. Tell me that the “gentlemen” who practise this “humour” only after someone has been banned from responding are proud examples of right wing intellect. Tell me it’s anything other than juvenile, cowardly sexism.

Webdiary is a haven of reasoned argument compared to this tripe.

G'day. The Age reports on our independent Webdiary at Diarist sets sail with online newspaper. There is one error of fact in the story. I became an independent contractor to smh.com.au in pursuance of a contract with Fairfax signed in late June 2004, from memory, and it was a month or so after that that I gave up all the benefits of full-time permanent employment. On August 22 this year I terminated my 3 year contract to write for, edit and publish Webdiary for smh.com.au for 3 years for material breach of contract by Fairfax.

UPDATE, 9.05pm 13/9: This is weird. The link to The Age piece worked, but now it doesn't. Google says it's there, but it isn't. Any ideas? I sent the following message to The Age feedback section here:

"Hi. I posted a link to an Age piece called 'Diarist sets sail with online ewspaper' by Jenny Sinclair, but now when you click the link it says the story can't be found. For example, see Google at http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%27+
Diarist+sets+sail+with+online+newspaper%27+&btnG=Search+News.

The link, which worked when I posted it, was http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/diarist-sets-sail-with-online-
newspaper/2005/09/11/1126377203980.html

Could you let me know when the link has been repaired?

Regards,

Margo Kingston, Webdiary editor

UPDATE, September 14, 4.38pm: I've just rechecked the link after someone who cares about archives sent me the full text of the yarn, which appeared in the hard-copy Age on Monday 12th of September in the 'Creative and Media Subsection' Page 2. The link is working again! Anyone know what happened? I'm assuming it was a technical glitch - I trust The Age's commitment to keeping its archives intact.

From the photos of the protest outside KBR's office in Brisbane it looks like we're going to have a facility to upload relevant images. Fantastic!

From Polly Bush's bio: "Reflecting on the excesses of a misguided youth, she first wrote to Webdiary under her so-called porn star name (first pet's name, first address name) to critique the Howard government's drug ads."

If real names are so great, why doesn't Polly Bush have to use hers?

ed Kerri: Hi Caroline. Real names are best. Proper names used as pseudonyms (regardless of imaginative origin) are acceptable as per this section of the discussion guidelines:

4. In line with Webdiary Ethics, posters must post using, at minimum, a first initial and a full surname ('J. Robertson'). Ideally all posters should post using their daily-use name ('Jack Robertson'). Where overlaps with existing Webdiarist posting names is possible, additional information should be used by the late-comer ('Jack J. Robertson'; 'John James Smith). Posters who wish to use a pseudonym must advise Webdiary editors briefly of their reasons, or be willing to do so. Pseudonyms must be:

a. of a neutral and conventional nature;
b. consistently used once chosen.

It is up to each poster to determine why they may need to use a pseudonym. That the chosen name is a 'proper' name is important. Jack explains the why:

Use of standard name forms lends Webdiary discussions a more substantial and civil tone. It is far easier and more egalitarian for a 'Jack Robertson' to maintain a serious conversation with a 'John Smith' or a 'J. Smith', than with a 'John', a 'Johnny12345', a 'John Howardsucks' or a 'Mickey Mouse'.

I hope this explains our position a little more clearly. Cheers.

Whilst I can appreciate the concerns of some posters with regards to the correcting of spelling and grammatical errors (within reason I'm sure), I have to say I agree with the policy. Often typos are just quick errors not intended by the poster, and overall it's neater, and does set a standard, just as wearing suits in Parliament is supposed to set a standard.

One poster commented it was Orwellian, and smacked of the Ministry of Truth. However I'd argue that contemporary web/text speak smacks of Newspeak where all nuance and ideas are weeded out by virtue of the language's sparsity.

"K I no ths wl ofnd sum k bt I jst cnt stnd it, k, it rly gr8s on me."

David Roffey and David Eastwood I see no purpose in "rejected" posts being published. There is enough dodgy stuff which slips in ostensibly under the guidelines, including racism. Would be nice to have a giggle at some of the more bizarre flights of fancy but that then leaves the door open for every nutjob on the planet to turn up and spam the place.

A lot of fly-bys post questionable comments in an attempt to get attention, rather than to add anything substantial to the debate. Some of these would-be posters are agenda-pushers as well and will disappear once the thread has slipped into the void. It is sometimes difficult to work out who is actually doing what.

Moderating a place like this is a tough call. The fact that posters cannot edit their own offerings once they are posted tends to make more work for editors as well because I think sometimes some people inadvertently post inflammatory or inaccurate statements on which if pulled up privately by editors, they may have a rethink.

David Roffey I concur with the tone of your latest report, I agree that the intellectual low-ground is largely spoken for in the main. But, is there not some way that the rejected posts can be aired in some form of on-line "garbage bin" that demonstrates to sceptics that the process of editorial intervention is robust, that demonstrates the silliness of the content or purported identity, and does not expose Webdiary to any litigation or other risk?

ed Kerri: Hi David, a transparent "bin" is being considered for the new site. However, I personally would remain reluctant to publish some aspects of a rejected post, such as personal abuse, if it had the potential to cause distress to the intended recipient. Naming the author too could cause problems as the cause for 'binning' could be brought back into the Webdiary debates and forum, resulting further ugly arguments.

In all cases we try to do our best to be as transparent and even handed as possible in our dealings with posts. And some point, all of us Webdiarists must trust each other to do 'the right thing'. Our new site will have more facilities for this side of the keyboard to share our trust with posters also. We all look forward to these developments.

While we are running on around 200 comments a day, I will publish updated management analysis after each 1000 comments or soon after.

At comment 3050, another 26 posted comments were not intended for publication (messages to editors, corrections etc), leaving 3000 proposed for publication. Of these:

- published: 2954

- not published for lack of real name: 14

- not published - author banned for persistent abuse: 5

- not published - lengthy conspiracy theories - 7

- not published - abusive, wind-ups etc : 20

The percentage of comments submitted for publication but not published:
46/3000 = 1.5%

A number of posts fell into more than one category, but put into the most relevant. Some continue to test the moderators by trying out their creativity eg posing as a 'Pastor from Alberta', address ‘jesus@saves.com’.

The unpublished abusive posts came from all sides of debate - left-leaning correspondents are as liable to use over the top language as right-leaning in all our experience - or to take the ID stream, Christians would appear to be nearly as prone to spleen-venting as atheists.

A number of the "not for publication" messages to the editor were from Webdiarists complaining of posts that we did let through, that they felt went over the top. We have listened to them, and it is likely therefore that the proportion of posts or partial posts not published will increase to ensure that we maintain a vibrant and respectful discussion forum.

Thank you all for your contributions.

So, are you going to update the 'statistics' at the top of this page every time you refuse to print someone's comments?

James Waterton I think you're wasting your time posting here - perhaps I am too with this reply but ::shrug:: I have nothing to do for five minutes.

I've only contributed a couple of times with a 50-50 hit rate, so inclusiveness is not the strong suit here.

It seems unless you support the politics of the major of the posters here and take a vow of un-Tim Blairness, you're not likely to be welcomed.

And that is fair. It is the 'price of membership' to Web Diary.

Dee has raised the interesting question of self-editing. What’s the work load involved in flipping the rejected post back to the sender (with a note as to the reasons for rejection) and give them another (just one) go at meeting the guidelines? That might remove some angst.

ed Kerri: using our current software, it is 2 x cut n' paste into an email, and perhaps a few minutes spent on a small explanation. It is done on occasion, and outcomes on the whole are favourable.

A 'bounce' feature on the new software would be excellent and would serve this purpose without too much additional time spent by the editors.

David Roffey call me dumb, but what you used as an example there is a great validation of the "Garbage Bin" concept to me. Certainly, remove enough from the offensive posts to de-fuse them and protect the innocent, and WD, but then publish them, out of context, in the "fish john west rejected" bin to demonstrate transparency. Leave the posters' names on if you think it will help them make fools of themselves.

Dee - I agree with your point to the extent that dodgy content will pollute the threads, but the approach I've suggested here ought to deal with that.

John, Dee: multi-part addition to Kerri's answer:

1) see what Kerri says below about the extent to which we do go back on some problematic but content-laden posts ...

2) to take a recent but typical example of unpublished stuff from either side, I see no point in publishing, revealing in a bin, or sending back for amendment a post whose entire content (names removed) is:

Margo. While I have no wish to speak ill of the intellectually deprived, and don't doubt for a minute that XXX is a nice [person] and kind to animals, [] is an intellectual non-event; a light-weight in the true Australian tradition [whose] "contributions" to Webdiary are nothing but a catalogue of vapid attempts at "flaming".

3) the facilities on the new site should allow us to provide permissions for trusted regular commenters to publish and edit their own comments (though we will reserve the right to withdraw that trust if abused).

4093 comments now processed. Of those, 93 were not for publication: messages to editors or Margo, marked not for publication, duplicate posts, corrections to previous posts, etc. Of the 4000 submitted for publication, 52 were not published (1.3%).

The breakdown, plus some notes:

- not published for lack of real name: 13 - actually down one since the last published analysis, as two posts were subsequently published after discussion with the author.

- not published - author banned for persistent abuse: 5 - no additions in the last 2000 comments

- not published - lengthy conspiracy theories - 7 - no additions

- not published - abusive, wind-ups etc : 27 - 7 more in the last 1000

The reduction in the number of comments submitted but not published in the last 1000 is unlikely to continue: a number of the NFP comments were from readers who were concerned that published comments in some streams - notably the Tampa one - were, to quote one reader: "personal, nasty, vitriolic and crude ... there is, I believe, between ⅓ and ½ of the thread which either contributes nothing to the discussion or does nothing to move the discussion on". In fact, before that comment was received, Kerri had already asked editors to tighten up on what goes through.

David E: I do take your point in general - but would point out that it might be necessary in some cases for the editors to do considerable work to make that possible with abusive posts, and I'd rather they worked on publishing things than on not publishing things.

More importantly, it is still my view that even in a 'bin' we could and should not publish some illegal or offensive posts where the content itself is unacceptable for publication. This being so, the 'bin' would necessarily be incomplete - and thus be essentially useless in defusing the conspiratorialists from speculating on the content of the missing ones.

Further, a stated intent to publish (even in a bin) all posts that are unacceptable substantially removes our ability to persuade Webdiarists that they need to temper and self-edit their own language to get published - since they will in fact get published anyway, and can goad each other on to see what sort of things they can get into the bin, if they should be sad individuals of the type that a number of other blogs tolerate.

So, no, we won't be doing that. This will remain a moderated site, and we will not explain what we received and did not publish in any more detail than we do now - which is already more than any print or web-based journal would do to list and explain why it didn't publish letters or unsolicited contributions.

The "unpublished" update at 6000 (not including 179 comments not for publication, duplicates etc):

Banned for persistent abuse: 6
Three categories invented especially for Marilyn:
Copyright violation: 1
Reams of unformatted text: 1
Incomprehensible: 1
Conspiracy theories: 40
Content-free, abusive: 71 - I will go back over the whole 6000 when I have a spare hour and divide these into the predominantly abusive and the merely content-free ...
No, or obscene, name: 34

Total unpublished intended for publication: 154/6000: 2.57%
[Math corrected!]

Dear Editors,

I would like to thank you sincerely for the tremendous job you all do. I would also like to apologise for the angry tirade I posted last night. While I feel ashamed at having added to the unpublished statistics, I would have felt far more shame had my outburst been exposed to the world.

I will moderate my future contributions so as not to burden you like that again.

Margo: Thanks Michael.

September traffic update:
56 new posts published in month
4840 comments received in month (5960 since start)
175,000 page views in month
- Busiest day 8800, busiest hour 875
Bandwidth 26GB

The "unpublished" update at 5000 (not including 145 comments not for publication, duplicates etc):

Banned for persistent abuse: 6
Copyright violation: 1 - a new category I put in to specifically point out that quoting more than a segment of an article published elsewhere is just that
Conspiracy theories: 27 - the Danby and suicide bomber streams attract these
Content-free, abusive: 52 - the usual mixture, mostly by the usual suspects: some of you on both or all sides of debate just get too heated ...
No, or obscene, name: 27 - there was a concerted attempt by the brainless to get us to publish some disguised obscenity by "clever" naming, a couple of which slipped through before the stream got obvious, and were subsequently un-published.

Total unpublished intended for publication: 113/5000: 2.26%