A year ago, Dave Winer called me with this idea, which he relates today:
Another insidious Internet problem, random people who challenge your integrity. I just tried a new method and it seems to have worked. Mr X wanted to start a round of flames challenging my integrity over a format I designed and promote. Somehow I have been doing something evil there, he claims. So I passed the challenge back through a reputable person, Mr Y, who knows both of us, asking that he look into X's claims, and let me know if there's any substance to them. I don't think Y would bother me with something that's not important, where X has done that many many times. The idea is that a public figure would have a committee of three people who vouch for his or her integrity, kind of the role the editor and publisher of a magazine or newspaper plays. If you have an issue with me, take it up with one of my committee members. If they think there's an issue, then I have to take a look at it. This would up the level of discourse in the weblog world substantially. So many of the challenges don't provide any data at all. I am tired of getting these hits. There's almost always two or three people trying to end my career in humiliation. Let them take some risks when they do that. No I don't think it's funny that you think I'm an asshole. Find someone else to pick on.
I don't agree that this is like the function of an editor or publisher, but a kind of court of fact, which, given the narrow range of perspectives that might be represented would be far from an ideal source of objective judgment, even about a single person's reputation.
Dave rubs a lot of people the wrong way, and they do the same to him. We're a prickly species. But what Dave is experiencing is the ongoing impact of living partly in public. It's a writerly problem, since we're talking about a textual medium, at this point. Basically, though, people need to recognize that a part of public participation is growing a thick skin. Why do politicians survive the constant lambasting they get? They've grown inured to the criticism, especially the idiotically blunt criticisms of people who are doing nothing more than objecting to a specific issue (like a political idea or, in Dave's case, the definition of RSS or blogging).
Thick skin is good for public debate, because it allows us to pass over the dumbth in a discussion and stay focused on the nut of the issue. It also has a downside (doesn't everything?), since in many political cases another stimuli, money, takes the place of civil discourse in grabbing the attention of a politician seeking reelection. It also hurts the debate in the nerdosphere, since the tenor of many discussions devolves rapidly toward name-calling.
When all is said and done, a cadre of reputation judges becomes just another locus of contention and not a solution. Dave, do what I do: blow them off and deal with the issues you care about. Sorry, don't mean to sound like I think I am in a position to give advice, but it's worked well for many years of my writing career, especially when the Y2K doomers were accusing me of all sorts of badness and threatening, in some cases, to kill me. Keep arguing, don't turn to anyone for an acquittal. In the end, if you are right, you'll win. If you need to bend, bend, but don't think that means bending over. The best decisions come from a wide-ranging debate.
Posted by Mitch Ratcliffe at October 13, 2003 09:36 AM | TrackBack