Freedom of Blogging and Freedom of Speech

I'm not about to go into the ethics of changing a person's post, because offhand I think it's practice that the blogging community should (and for the most part does) decry. More important, I think, is framing the rules of a particular blog, or whether or not that should be done at all.

I think people (bloggers being particularly prone) forget that while the blogosphere is NOT the real world, it does play a part in it. Blog flamers, MMORPG bullies (this is probably a terrible link), or even road rage - without a face, it's hard to remember the humanity. It's easier to revert to savageness in that state, or become a vandal.

If you don't claim to be someone worth paying attention to, then I guess you can be as much of a jackass as you like. But the very nature of blogging would suggest that you'd like at least a little bit to be in/famous.

This site that Brenda linked was a good jumping off point, I think. He tries to make the distinction between personal blogs and journalistic blogs. Many of the most popular blogs though, are simply purveyors of information, like those old-fashioned newsies, shouting at the top of their lungs. But now, there's no telling what stories they're selling, or for who, or why they're doing it.

Going back to the whole wikipedia debate, the same dillema is being played out. Wikipedia, pure and simple, is not an encyclopedia in the old fashioned sense (duh - but wait, I'm not done). It's an amalgamation of the collective knowledge that the community it attracts has put together. By trying to give it laws and police it, the Wikileaders suggest that it could be managed enough to be a credible source to curious minds. However, doing so undermines the nature of the collective effort - as if to say, "We value the promotion of the collectively understood truth, except for yours and yours and yours..." I get why, I hate trolls and flamers and idiot population in general too. But they're still part of the group. By taking the stance they have now, Wikipedia fails as a perfectly democratic outlet, and also a highly credible information source.

But I'm still going to read it.

Because it doesn't fail at being proponent of information. I'm of the opinion that you can only value freedom if you also value respect. And the thing is, a lot of people don't. So there is a need for rules. Even the most frustrating of arguments ought to be allowed in a public forum, so long as it is in a respectful and articulate form. Yeah, that's really subjective. But I also believe that there are people who are capable of making that distinction - it's just that finding them can be hard. I think these guys have done a decent job over the years, even if they don't get it right the first time. Blogs, in theory, should try and conduct themselves under the same general guidelines.