Today, comments go live on The Wireless.
Comments online have a bad reputation. Last year, someone set up a Twitter feed to monitor the comments on Stuff.co.nz, though it petered out after 180 tweets. (Keeping up that level of snark is tough.) “Never read the comments” is a common refrain.
Although that bad reputation is probably deserved, the trolls are a small proportion of website users. An American survey, by AdAge, found that only 15 per cent of people “often” or “always” comment on news stories. “More people read the comments, and six in 10 find them to be offensive sometimes,” the website reports.
We’re hoping we can expect better. The feedback we've received about having comments has been pretty evenly split between people who think we should have them, and people who are glad we don’t. But with the help of moderation, and not allowing anonymous comments, we think engaged, interested debate is possible. You’ll be able to ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ comments, and of course flag anything that slips through moderation. We’ll be encouraging civil conversation that's on-topic, and of course, no personal attacks.
Photo: Unknown
Slate reports the author of a study on trolls, Erin Buckels, as saying “the allure of trolling may be too strong for sadists, who presumably have limited opportunities to express their sadistic interests in a socially-desirable manner.” (Here’s an interesting conversation on Canada’s CBC, about how media organisations can handle these kinds of commenters.)
Websites are still struggling to figure out how to create civil, interesting and valuable conversation. Increasingly, they’re banning anonymous comments, making people log in through one of their social networks. “We want people to be candid – actively engage in strong and thorough debate, but do it in a way without anonymity,” Patrick Stiegman, editor-in-chief of ESPN.com said when they switched to Facebook-authenticated comments. “Agree or disagree, but do it in a way that is as productive and civil as possible.”
Photo: Supplied
Popular Scientist famously switched off comments last year, citing a study that found ‘uncivil’ comments sections actually hinder people’s understanding of science. The magazine’s online content director Suzanne LaBarre wrote:
A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
So why have them? Pleading for places like YouTube to clean up their act, Anil Dash wrote in 2011: “When you engage with a community online in a constructive way, it can be one of the most meaningful experiences of your life. It doesn't have to be polite, or neat and tidy, or full of everyone agreeing with each other. It just has to not be hateful and destructive.” And Jeff Atwood – who has been around the internet for a good long while – says he’s a fan of comments, “warts and all”. “They're noisy, sure, but in my experience they reliably produce crowdsourced knowledge in aggregate.”
Auckland Action Against Poverty co-ordinator, Nadia Abu-Shanab says she's shocked by some of what she's seen. Photo: : Connor Strati
To quote our comments policy, we want to encourage free and frank discussion. We want to hear your ideas and your thoughts. We’re interested in a conversation. We’d like that to be polite – basically, if you wouldn’t say something to someone’s face, don’t say it here. But be thought-provoking, interesting, informative, entertaing – all the things the internet can be at its best.
