dcsimg
 
 
 

Readers Support Moderated Comment Policy

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Our decision to remove anonymous comments pot-shotting BearingPoint CIO Eric Goldfarb drew praise from some readers.

"Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, but they also bear the responsibility of what they said," writes Jim Bratsakis.

"I believe that preventing those personal shots here is fair," says Ahmed El Adl.

One commenter -- using a pseudonym -- suggested that commenters might have good reason to post anonymously. That's true, and that's why we wrote that we would consider anonymous comments from people who are willing to make their case to us; journalists use anonymous sources all the time, but that's different from running unverified material from unknown writers.

And an argument that made our point about standards for us: comments are free content, and allowing a free-for-all could increase our traffic. Maybe, but that's not what we're about. We want to provide a forum for intelligent conversation among IT pros. That includes tough calls and criticism -- but not anonymous personal remarks and unsourced allegations about the inner workings of a business.

 
 
 
 

2 Comments for "Readers Support Moderated Comment Policy"

  • it-peon June 03, 2009 2:12 pm

    it is not all that important that some unenlightened people do not understand the difference between "free speech" and "editing": just delete the junk (from either anonymous sources or named sources), and keep content that is relevant and pertinent. privacy has many dimensions. requiring people to identify themselves is silly, requiring them to post coherent material is not silly. the real issue should be the pervasive forms of bureaucratic and political dysfunctionality (paradigm regression, ego, greed, predatory and psychopathic leadership) in businesses, organizations and society. rampant narcissism, the "me generation" stuff, and the rejection (by both management and workers) of traditional values, such as duty and loyalty, are just the tip of the nightmarish postmodern organizational iceberg. as postmodern culture's rejection of traditional and modernist "absolutes" inevitably accelerates, more "gut checks" like this are going to happen, and people's blind faith in "corporatism" and related forms of mindless conformism and paradigm regression will start to crumble. after the crumble, hopefully new forms of culture and organization that re-integrate spirituality, rationalism, morality and "systems" will be formulated. please note that Ivan Illich predicted much of the problem 25 years ago in an article titled "Vernacular Values" written for the CoEvolution Quarterly (Whole Earth Catalog). please note that Jurgen Habermas described the "colonization of lifeworld by systems" about as long ago. (the displacement of the organic, natural, artistic and spiritual basis for personal, family and community health by the requirements of a system of "experts" and "professional elites") join the integral thought movement and step into the future. the intensive focus of postmodern culture on "meaning" as defined by individual needs can lead down a "bad" path of ego or a "good" path of enlightenment. the problem is that postmodern culture "decontructs" the traditional definitions of enlightenment (metaphysics) that have historically been the source of selflessness. so an integral framework that brings together transcendance and rationalism is needed. a clear map of how "shadows" influence crumbling organizational culture will lead to solutions to the current crisis of leadership.

  • Cameron May 29, 2009 11:53 pm

    I agree. Everyone should bear the responsibility of what they said.

Leave a Comment