John asks:

> In a web site project I'm working on, I need to "censor" posts that users 
>  make.  Specifically, I need to remove "obscene, vulgar, offensive, 
abusive, 
>  hateful, harassing, profane, sexually oriented, and threatening" words, 
>  replacing each occurrence with the very long phrase "{text deleted by 
>  moderator}".

The Washington Post, and earlier the LA Times, both fixed their user blog 
profanity problems in the simplest way possible: they simply shut down user 
entries into their blogs. They both said that it wasn't worth the time and trouble 
that having a human scrub the blogs was taking.

Automated scrubbing is probably never going to work well enough to be useful.

=======================================

January 20, 2006
Paper Closes Reader Comments on Blog, Citing Vitriol 
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Correction Appended

The Washington Post stopped accepting reader comments on one of its blogs 
yesterday, saying it had drawn too many personal attacks, profanity and hate mail 
directed at the paper's ombudsman.

The closing was the second time in recent months that a major newspaper has 
stopped accepting feedback from readers in a Web forum. An experiment in 
allowing the public to edit editorials in The Los Angeles Times lasted just two days 
in June before it was shut because pornographic material was being posted on 
the site. 

The Post's blog, which had accepted comments from readers on its entries 
since it was first published on Nov. 21, stopped doing so indefinitely yesterday 
afternoon with a notice from Jim Brady, executive editor of 
www.washingtonpost.com.

Mr. Brady wrote that he had expected criticism of The Post on the site, but 
that the public had violated rules against personal attacks and profanity.

"Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have 
refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow 
comments for the time being," Mr. Brady wrote. "Transparency and reasoned 
debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it's a disappointment to us that 
we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about 
issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about."

In an interview, Mr. Brady said the site had been overwhelmed with what he 
described as vicious personal attacks against Deborah Howell, the newspaper's 
ombudsman.

She wrote a column about Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty to 
conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion, and said that several Democrats "have gotten 
Abramoff campaign money," apparently intending to say that they received 
campaign money from Mr. Abramoff's clients. 

Her column generated complaints, and after saying she thought her views were 
being misrepresented, she was attacked again, prompting her to say she would 
not post any more replies.

The complaints escalated into what Mr. Brady said were unprintable comments 
that started "sucking up the time of two people" to keep them from appearing on 
the blog. 

"We were taking them out by the hundreds," he said. "It was just too much to 
handle."

He added that he believed that the problem was "more issue-based than 
site-based," noting that The Post has more than two dozen other blogs where no such 
thing occurs. "This particular issue has inflamed the far left, and it seems to 
be something they've decided they'll fight," he said.

Joan Walsh, editor in chief of Salon.com, an online newsmagazine that allows 
open comment from the public, said that The Post had probably drawn such 
attacks to its site in part because it represents the mainstream media. 

"While we're an established news organization, we're not 'the establishment,' 
" she wrote in an e-mail message, noting that Salon has had to take down only 
a handful of comments since its blog went live three months ago. In both the 
Post and Los Angeles Times cases, she wrote, "there was an element of novelty 
and rebellion and being able to talk back to 'the man.' " 

Still, she said, "I think it's a shame that neither organization saw it 
through, because I think the more obnoxious comments would have died down, and 
they'd have ultimately gotten the kind of debate they wanted."

Mr. Brady said he expected to reopen the comments at some point, but he 
needed to figure out how to patrol the site better and "keep it clean." 

Mr. Brady held an online question-and-answer session on Friday to address 
reader concerns about the incident. Many participants complained that The Post 
was practicing censorship and silencing its critics. Mr. Brady responded that 
the Post was doing no such thing, pointing to the online discussion and the fact 
that of 30 blogs maintained by The Post, only one was shut off from outside 
comment.

"We don't have an obligation to keep every one of those avenues open if we 
run into problems like we did yesterday," Mr. Brady wrote.

Mr. Brady said that Ms. Howell would address the Abramoff matter in her 
Sunday column, prompting some participants to complain that she should be thinking 
more about the online audience rather than adhering to a print schedule.

Others asked how Mr. Brady intended to proceed. He said he was considering 
prescreening of comments, but he did not like that option.

"Real-time debate about the issues of the day is exciting, and what the Web 
can provide," he wrote. "Any prescreening makes that harder, but in certain 
subject areas, it may be the way we have to go."

He also said that The Post was planning to introduce an online debate next 
week between bloggers and journalists "to start getting to some of the tough 
questions this issue has raised, specifically how to make sure the dialogue 
between the media and its consumers can flourish online."


Correction: Jan. 20, 2006

An earlier version of this story reported incorrectly that The Washington 
Post had closed a blog. The blog has not been shut; it has stopped accepting 
comments from readers

=======================================

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *