Blogging codes of conduct: consensus still seems unlikely

My thoughts about consensus on a blogging code of conduct are unchanged:  consensus is unlikely, but the discussion is useful.  Here are some comments I sent this morning to an editor at Der Spiegel Online (is it just me, or is the tenor of these questions in keeping with a certain presumption of loutishness?):

> - Is self-regulation a sign of profesionalization? Is this something good
> for Blogs?
No, I don't think there's any reason to equate the two, or generalize
about the blogosphere becoming more "professional" or otherwise.  Some
blogs are professional; some are not and never intend to be.  The
diversity is what makes blogs a rich and vibrant experience.
Regarding whether proposed codes of conduct are "good" for blogs,
again it's futile to generalize.  I think blogging codes of conduct
will continue to develop incrementally and organically, and will be
put forth and adopted by those who feel a particular set of norms
reflect their values.  For as long as I've been paying attention
(since 2001), I haven't seen any widespread consensus develop around
any particular proposed code, and though Tim O'Reilly's contribution
thus far is the most visible, it does not appear as though it will be
the exception in this regard (see discussion at:
http://www.techmeme.com/070409/p7#a070409p7).  I don't see this as a
question of "good" or "bad," but rather an experiment.  It will
resonate with some, but not others.
> - Why do Bloggers need a codification of rules for getting along? Where
> are laws and where is common sense not enough? And why is this so?
Ideally, laws intervene when the social compact breaks down, or when
blameless parties need protection.  There's no "need" for a
self-imposed set of rules per se.  But, again ideally, legal
institutions attempt to foster conduct that reflects good public
policy.  When it comes to the Internet, at least in the U.S. lawmakers
are perpetually challenged to determine when a laissez-faire approach
best serves that end, and when more formal rules and consequences are
in order.  Thus, as a practical matter, bloggers who sensibly
self-regulate can provide an atmosphere that is more comfortable for
their users, and afford themselves some cover from laws that seek to
discourage wrongful acts by spreading responsibility.
> - Does the blog scene benefit from this debate about a code of conduct (in
> which way: regarding transparency, open debate, bindingness)?
Overall, I would say yes, the blogosphere is particularly well-suited
to open debate and excels at fleshing out the permutations of a
controversy (see http://www.techmeme.com/070409/p7#a070409p7).  The
discussion, and the self-examination it encourages, is healthy
notwithstanding the fact consensus may not be possible, and perhaps
precisely because of it.
> - How would and how should such a codification differ from the press codex
> for example?
By "the press codex," I assume you mean industry-accepted standards
and practices pertaining to journalists.  There are both differences
and similarities.  It's wrong to equate Tim O'Reilly's proposed code
of conduct with something designed to promote the integrity of
information per se.  For that, you might refer to the Principles of
Citizen Journalism (http://www.citmedia.org/principles).  That said,
as is true in the journalistic arena, some or many bloggers may decide
that following certain standards and practices can confer credibility
and limit liability.  It may also serve an end more integral to the
blogosphere than to "traditional" journalism -- fostering
conversation.
> - And what's the use of a codex without sanctions?
See prior answer.
> - The lows of US-blog-history from your view? What could self regulation
> have changed?
I can't think of any real "lows;" I've been blogging a long time and
see the trend as overarchingly positive for individuals, businesses,
and institutions.  If you have specific examples in mind I'll be happy
to try to address them.