Why we're introducing new rules to restore civility to Stuff's comments
Friday, 28 October 2016
Wait! If you're about to skip down to the comments without reading the article, here's the short version: we want to lift the standard of conversation in Stuff's comments section, so we've rewritten our house rules and we're tightening our moderation.
Still with us? Here's the full version:
We know many Stuff readers enjoy the comments section - they love speaking their mind on the issues of the day, debating with others, and sampling a wide range of views.
But we also know some readers find the comments section off-putting - too often nasty or small-minded, and seemingly overrun by trolls and partisans.
Race relations, gender issues, religion, welfare and beneficiaries - comments threads on these topics have an alarming tendency to turn toxic.
**READ MORE:
* A week in the life of Stuff's comments
* [I have suffered the ugly side of comments
*](http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/84016443/I-have-suffered-the-ugly-side-of-Stuff-comments) We shouldn't take comment sections for granted
* Quiz: Your turn to be the moderator
VIDEO:
* [I fixed that comment for you
*](http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/85834167/Here-I-fixed-that-dodgy-comment-for-you) Would you say that to your granny?**
Stuff is hardly alone here. Social platforms and media outlets worldwide have witnessed a trend toward harsher, less productive public debate.
Most media organisations still choose to host reader comments. But there have been some prominent recent examples of media abandoning comments - including NPR in America and RNZ in New Zealand - preferring for reasons of pragmatism or principle to outsource the task to social media platforms.
We think comments are worth fighting for.
We're committed to hosting comments on Stuff, but we want to restore some civility to the conversation.
Our aim is to create an entertaining and enlightening space where our readers can debate the issues of the day in a constructive way.
What we don't want is our comments section to become a place where people feel abused or bullied. We don't want our readers feeling they can't share their stories with us over fears of vitriolic comments.
We publish hundreds of stories each day and we allow comments on a high proportion of them. In the last year, the number of comments has nearly doubled - roughly 5000 on a busy day now.
Intellectual snobs sneer at the views that don't mirror theirs, but the democratisation of media is one of the great positives of the internet age. Gone are the days when media gatekeepers controlled the conversation. Why should politicians, celebrities and media personalities be the only ones to have their voices heard?
No argument that engaging readers is good for our business but it's really a question about what sort of site we want to be.
We want to give our readers both a voice and a sense of community on Stuff.
We believe genuine debate on the news of the day - thoughtful, constructive debate with a range of views - can help society. It's healthy to allow alternative viewpoints to be aired, not to mention democratic. The diversity of the comments section provides a partial antidote to the bubble effect of social media, where you see what you already think reflected back at you.
That so many media outlets were blindsided by Donald Trump's US election victory shows the danger of operating in an elitist cocoon, divorced from your audience. Comments help us stay connected and, importantly, accountable. When we make mistakes, our readers will let us know immediately. And when our journalists see the responses their stories generate they're reminded who we're really reporting for - our audience.
We're asking you to work with us to restore a sense of civility to the toxic swamp.
This week we're publishing a series of stories intended to spark debate about how we talk to each other online. And after audience feedback, we're introducing stricter rules for commenting.
This isn't about sanitising your views; it's about allowing sanity to prevail.
So we've beefed up the laws, and we're also putting more police on the streets - more staff focused on comments to improve both the standard and speed of moderation.
Are you still going to spot comments that arguably shouldn't have been approved? Inevitably. We're only human, so we make mistakes sometimes. When dodgy comments are flagged to us, we'll review them.
If you're curious about how we select which stories are open for comments or why your comment hasn't appeared, we've prepared a frequently asked questions list.
Got that all out of your system? Good.
We're not instituting a real names only policy, because the evidence that it actually works is inconclusive (evidence to the contrary: any post on a public Facebook page) and it can have a chilling effect on minority voices.
And don't worry - we're not turning Stuff into a wine loft, where only high-falutin intellectuals will congregate. But neither do we want to run a dive bar, where you're constantly on edge in case you get jumped.
We're aiming for the atmosphere of a friendly neighbourhood pub - come on in for a chat, healthy debate, and a bit of banter, but don't disgrace yourself. And if things are getting messy, the bartender will call time.
We've opened comments on this story, because we'd like to hear what you think of our plan.
We welcome discussion, disagreement and dissent - but keep it civil. To borrow a line from the White Man Behind a Desk video at the top of this page: 'Don't just argue - argue well.'
READ OUR NEW RULES FOR COMMENTS AND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Video courtesy of White Man Behind A Desk. See more on YouTube or show your support on Patreon.