Remember when we asked you to help us come up with an official comments policy? Some of you took us up on the offer! We’d like to give you about another week to contribute any edits before we officially adopt the policy. What you see below is the current draft, and after that you’ll find a reminder of how to make your contributions to this policy.
We are committed to fostering an environment characterized by generosity, creativity, and (as corny as it might sound) kindness. Comments on this blog are an important part of creating that environment, and this comment policy aims to communicate our values to new readers and encourage comments that will build up the online community here.
Thoughtful comments (even when–and often especially if–disagreeing) are encouraged and appreciated.
No snark allowed (see David Denby on definition of snark). While snark certainly has its virtues, this blog provides a space for people to be inexperienced at something, or even wrong, to facilitate learning. That’s harder to do in the face of either persistent or “drive-by” snark.
Profhacker should be a community built through regular contributions made by recognized–but not necessarily “real name”–contributors. Some commenters’ identity reveals their real names; other commenters use pseudonyms. Our online identities are built from our comments here and our presence–as commenters and authors–in other places on the web, in print, at conferences. Anonymity and pseudonymity are fine, but not if you’re using it to abuse, harass, or snark.
Links & images are encouraged. Gratuitous linking back to your own site is discouraged. Links in the “website” field should point only to profile pages or to personal websites.
Gravatars are strongly encouraged.
We feel like this is a pretty good policy in its current form, but if you have any thoughts about how this policy might be worded, please feel free to get involved. We’d like to have a policy in place within the next week or so.
How can you get involved? Well, if you don’t already have a PBWorks account, sign up for one, then go to http://profhackering.pbworks.com and compose or edit as you see fit. Once the policy has reached a stage that feels something like “complete,” we’ll adopt it as our official comments policy. And, you should know, we’ll publish the policy on the site with a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.
Follow Profhacker through your favorite RSS reader: 
7 Responses to An Update On Our Comments Policy
Drew - February 6, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Given the commonality of the word “flame” in the vernacular of the internet generation, I might reccomend it for inclusion in the policy. Basically as clarification of “Snark” which immediately causes me to think of the television show “Frasier”.
Rana - February 6, 2010 at 5:25 pm
I personally wouldn’t “jump all over you” – but I would gently suggest you reconsider using it. Why do unnecessary harm, when it is so easily avoided?
George H. Williams - February 6, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Thanks for the feedback. Note that you do not need to buy the book to read the relevant pages available in the preview on GoogleBooks. Snark is not the same thing as sarcasm.
Rana - February 5, 2010 at 1:04 am
I’ve wanted to comment on the policy, but am reluctant to keep track of yet another site and its passwords, so I’m taking advantage of this update to suggest that, perhaps, the policy should include wording about not using language that excludes – sexist comments, racist ones, ableist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. I haven’t seen any of this here so far, but it’d be nice to have the reminder, and something to point to if you do need to moderate a comment in the future.
Nels - February 7, 2010 at 3:53 pm
My general attitude toward comments on this site is that they should be written in a way that encourages and extends conversation. Yes, we’ll disagree, but are our disagreements presented in such as way as to say, “this does not work for me for these reasons,” or, “you are clearly wrong and misguided.” The first extends discussion by showing alternatives and options while keeping in mind the importance of context. The second seems to have a tone that says, “Shut up.” Sarcasm can be a way of bringing people together, especially when it’s directed at yourself, or it can be a way to shut people down. So, maybe the distinction isn’t, “Is this snark or sarcasm,” but, “Does this comment encourage people to join in or does it shut people out?” There are enough sites out there where comments are meant to be confrontational, aggressive, and challenging. I’m here because the comments are not like that.
GC Fiedler - February 5, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Snark? I’m not going to buy a book to see the definition you are using. But what’s wrong with a little sarcasm, assuming that’s what you mean?
As far as not using language that is (as Rana suggests) “sexist comments, racist ones, ableist, transphobic, homophobic, etc” – sounds nice in practice, but with all political correctness sometimes difficult to grasp the scope of. If I describe an idea or argument as “lame”, is someone going to jump all over me for being ‘ableist’?
George H. Williams - February 6, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Interesting suggestion, Drew, thanks. Certainly flaming–personal attacks, or ad hominem arguments–aren’t welcome, but that’s not the same thing as snark.
As I wrote in the first post inviting readers to contribute to the comments policy
What’s snark? I’m thinking of the kind of discourse David Denby takes on in his most recent book. It’s commentary characterized by a condescending, abusive, and dismissive attitude. It’s the cheap shot masquerading as wit. It’s cynicism disguised (poorly) as wisdom. It’s not what ProfHacker is about.
So… no snark allowed. That’s not negotiable; that part of the policy has been present since before this site even existed. Adding some language about flaming is probably a good idea.