A couple of days ago I criticised Adrian Warnock for censoring comments. He has shown the inconsistency, or at least the arbitrary application, of his comment policy by accepting the following comment – not written by himself, of course, in fact from an otherwise unidentifiable “Mark”:
every time I hear/read Driscoll he gets more and more obsessed and more and more extreme
while rejecting my much less ad hominem one, even when toned down to present the “accusation” as a question, like Adrian’s (in post titles) “Is N. T. Wright Preaching Another Gospel?” and “Does Piper Neglect the Resurrection?” But I am pleased to see in the latter post a critical evaluation of one of those I have called his idols.
Well, Adrian of course has the right to accept or reject comments as he wishes. But if he wants his blog to retain any respect or credibility the comments he should be rejecting are ones like anonymous Mark’s rather than mine.
Now I can understand Adrian wanting to get rid of the problem of comments completely. He wrote in a comment here on this blog
I am thinking seriously of nuking the whole concept of comments over at my place. I do hope you guys understand my dilemna.
Yes, Adrian, I understand your dilemma. Justin Taylor faces a similar one, and is also considering disabling comments. But I still feel that your problem is that you are over-sensitive. Blogging is like a kitchen, if you can’t take the heat you need to get out of it. Yes, people will post abusive comments on your blog, and you can delete them. And occasionally other people will mis-attribute comments to you. Is that a big problem? Put a bold print disclaimer at the top of your comments section if you like. But when it comes down to it, you can’t stop stupid or malicious people writing what they like about you, on their own blogs and other sites if not in your comment boxes. That’s part of the grown-up world which you live in. If you don’t like it, go into a monastery, or at least stop blogging on controversial issues.
Meanwhile I have another problem with Adrian’s and Justin’s suggestion that they may disable comments completely. That is the issue of accountability. It is quite a serious issue with blogging that we bloggers can write what we like with no effective comeback from anyone. We can write all kinds of untruths and distortions, either deliberately or accidentally. I am not suggesting that Adrian or any other blogger I know deliberately distorts the truth. But we can and very often do do this unintentionally, by quoting unreliable sources, misunderstanding what we read, and simply with typos. And if there is no comment facility on the blog, there is no way for readers to point out these errors, errors which a responsible blogger will then correct.
Here is what I wrote in a comment on Justin Taylor’s post:
I consider that allowing blog comments is also important for accountability, for the blogger rather than the commenter. A blog with no comment facility allows the blogger to say what he or she wants with no possibility of feedback or correction, even of errors of fact. Personally I trust a lot more blogs with active commenting, because I can be sure that if the blogger has made an obvious error it will have been pointed out, and, if the blogger is responsible, corrected. This also ensures a decent balance of opinions. So, please keep the comment facility going.
I say the same to Adrian. I will add that I will not normally continue to read blogs which do not allow comments at all. I have already dropped from my Bloglines feed list some blogs which do not allow comments. I think I have retained only one, Anglican Mainstream, but that consists almost entirely of quotes from other sources, and it does have a linked discussion forum. Adrian, if you disable comments, you might find you lose a number of readers including me.
I agree with you, Peter. I don’t understand the great fear, almost terror people have of some commenter saying something they shouldn’t. It’s easy to delete if necessary, or one can simply respond in another comment, correcting misinformation.
I would also note that somewhat public figures, such as Piper or Grudem, should expect more, not less, vigorous criticism. It is a measure of their stature with their own constituents.
comments are an important part of dialogue. and i just added Henry Neufeld to my reader…
Indeed, Henry and Mike. On Henry’s last point see James 3:1, which is not necessarily only about divine judgment.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Ever felt like this about comments?
Feedback can happen in other ways than comments – eg by means of posts on other blogs, such as for example this one!
Indeed, Adrian, and I am glad that you do read feedback on my blog. However, not everyone who might need to comment on your posts has their own blog, and there is no guarantee that you will read any other blog, presumably including mine. I suppose at least you get a trackback notification. Also I don’t want my own blog to be continually distracted from its own subjects into commenting on yours.
Maybe I need to start a new blog, with many contributors, especially for negative comments and corrections of matters of fact on your blog. That would be fun! But it might not be very edifying. So I would far rather not have to do that.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Do not read Adrian’s blog any more
“Blogging is like a kitchen, if you can’t take the heat you need to get out of it.”
More like – blogging is like a house. You own it – you arrange it the way you like it. If in the process others can benefit, great! If not, at least you still get the benefit of doing what you are doing.
People generally blog with the expectation that it will lead to interaction. But it still remains an individual’s blog to run however he wishes. One can do as you have done and decide not to visit blogs run a certain way, but it is ridiculous to say that a blog should of necessity be run a certain way. Who is the authoritarian one?
OK, Chris, blogging is like a house, into which the blogger invites others as guests. But if the owner just lectures and preaches at his or her guests without allowing them to get a word in edgeways, he or she can’t expect his or her guests to come back. Adrian has the right to run his blog as he likes, and I have the right not to read it and not to recommend it to others.
Well, Adrian’s right to run his blog as he likes must be restricted by his duty to God and his extra responsibility as one who presumes to teach, James 3:1. It is before his own divine master that he stands or falls.
How about if I said blogging is like being in the kitchen of the house? If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can’t stand your guests, kick them out of your house! But then don’t be surprised if you find yourself alone and isolated.
There’s a reason why a “blog” is reckoned among the mainstays of so-called “Web 2.0” social software. As the Wikipedia article notes, “ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs”.
Of course, allowing comments is not required by “the rules” (there aren’t any). But if I want news/journal sites, I go to “standard” places like the BBC, Guardian Unlimited, or what have you. I go to blogs to be part of a community. And without comments, there ain’t no community, I reckon. There are precious few people (in this information overload age) I’ll read for their own sake. And most of them aren’t “bloggers”….
FWIW. (Probably not much.)
David Reimer
David, I completely agree with you.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Ruth Gledhill is also having problems with comments
I am a little perturbed by your suggestion that if you can’t cope with the grown up world, you should go and live in a monastery.
As someone who has lived in a convent for the last 18 years, I would suggest if you can’t cope with the grown up world, a monastary or convent is the last place you should think of going.
Thanks, Moyra. I didn’t really intend “live in a monastery” literally, but perhaps it was unwise to use this figure of speech. My point was of course that Adrian should withdraw from the public life implied by blogging if he cannot take the stress generated by it. That might just mean leading a normal family life. Of course he, as a psychiatrist, should be in a good position to advise himself on how to cope with stress.
Definitely, from my perspective, an unwise choice for a figure of speech.
But thank you for explaining your perspective a little further.