Via Robert Scoble's blog I read about Tim O'Reilly's draft Blogger's Code of Conduct. The basic points are:

1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.
2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.
4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.
5. We do not allow anonymous comments.
6. We ignore the trolls

I really like 1, 2 and 4. I have mixed feelings about 3,5 and 6.

The problem with trying to connect privately (item 3) is that this doesn't often scale in "Internet time." What is a reasonable time to wait for a reply? An hour? Twenty four hours? A couple of days? In Internet time the wrong information could be all over and accepted as truth in short order. Without a timely and public reply and correction things can be hard to get corrected. Sometimes it is a great idea to try and get things corrected privately and I have done that myself. Other times it is clear that trying to get a correction in private communication is not going to be sufficient.

In general I don't like anonymous comments (item 5). In general principal I do like the idea of requiring a valid email address that is not displayed as a check against both spam and unreliable comments. On the other hand I do understand the need for comments to be anonymous at times. Perhaps an option to give an explanation for why anonymity is necessary would work as a second option. Let the owner of the blog decide if the explanation meets their standards. If someone unfairly blocks anonymous comments that word will get out and people may choose not to read, link to or otherwise support that blog. Let the market decide but let bloggers have some principled control over their comment sections.

Trolls? (Item 6) I think that trolls can make a blog interesting and even fun. A reply to a troll can be a great opportunity to make or defend a point. I think that people can deal with trolls reasonably without always ignoring them.

BTW I object to Robert's writing the term "back channel" as if it were some sort of dirty word. He intermixes discussing differences of opinion publicly or privately with back room deals between bloggers in a way that makes any non public discussion look wrong. Not every communication needs to be public for it to be honest and reputable. (Full disclosure: I have sent Robert private email messages. Some of them have actually been link bait.)