Why We Edited Comments on BearingPoint
We're big fans of free expression here at CIO Insight, and we also thrive in the wide-open culture of the Internet.
So why did we take down several comments from this article on BearingPoint CIO Eric Goldfarb?
Because not every forum is the same, and not every comment is appropriate for every forum. Our goal here is to create a place where senior IT people can discuss the issues facing the CIO community, not to enable a free-for-all without any rules.
BearingPoint filed for Chapter 11 earlier this year. Goldfarb spoke to us about the challenges of retaining top employees in that environment.
Tough times bring out strong emotions, and the piece got a lot of comments. That's OK -- but many were personal shots at Goldfarb, or made factual claims about BearingPoint's business that were not documented -- and all of these were left by anonymous commenters.
That last part crosses a line at a site like this. We do allow some anonymous comments, but if you want to call out a person by name, or make claims about a business, then we're going to hold you to the same standards that have long prevailed in letters to the editor -- we'll need your real name. If you can show us why you wouldn't want your name published, we'll consider running the comment anonymously.
BearingPoint is not an advertiser, nor do we have any other business relationship with the company. As far as we can tell, there is no legal reason for us to remove these comments.
We're doing it out of our sense of what is decent and right, and what creates the most valuable publication for our readers.
Bring on your comments. Be brutally honest -- but extend that honesty to your own identity if you are going to take a shot at someone else.
That's the standard for this particular online community.
Ed Cone, managing editor, online, CIO Insight Brian Watson, editor, CIO Insight