Read a post by Charlotte AllenCharlotte Allen (charlotteallen.info)
I can’t help but think IndieWeb principles supercede the way scientific journals operate. POSSE for discovery, webmentions for citations and peer review. No fee. We basically just need a science clone of IndieWeb.xyz

Amen! Now to get the Webmention hub that does that and get people on board… Heck, even Altmetric is doing a proprietary version of backfeed, we just need to get it out to a broader audience.

Some of this exists on the wiki in bits and pieces. We should document the idea better for the uninitiated.

Read Your Website Is Your Passport by Desmond Rivet (Desmond Rivet)
One of the themes that crops up again and again in the IndieWeb community is that your personal domain, with its attendant website, should form the nexus of your online existence. Of course, people can and do maintain separate profiles on a variety of social media platforms, but these should be subordinate to the identity represented by your personal website, which remains everyone's one-stop-shop for all things you and the central hub out of which your other identities radiate.
Part of what this means in practice is that your domain should function as a kind of universal online passport, allowing you to sign in to various services and applications simply by entering your personal URL.
A nice little primer on authorization and authentication.
Read The makers of Jif peanut butter team up with Giphy to try to settle the GIF/Jif debate once and for all by Jay Peters (The Verge)
You’ll be able to buy a jar of Jif with ‘Gif’ printed on it
In another twist in the long-running debate about how to pronounce “GIF,” Jif peanut butter wants to make the case that it owns the soft “g” pronunciation while GIF should be said with a hard “g.”
I love that Vox has hidden the phrase “Even though the creator of the GIF has settled it already.” into their metadata on this post. 
Read Digital publics, Conversations and Twitter by Kevin Marks (epeus.blogspot.com)
Last week, I left the Web 2.0 conference to listen to Mimi Ito , danah boyd and their colleagues talk about their research on Digital Publ...
Interestingly Kevin’s comments indicate that I’ve read this before. Definitely worth another read from time to time.
Read Shadow banning (Wikipedia)
Shadow banning is the act of blocking or partially blocking a user or their content from an online community such that it will not be readily apparent to the user that they have been banned. For instance, shadow banned comments posted to a blog or media site will not be visible to other persons accessing that site from their computers. By partly concealing, or making a user's contributions invisible or less prominent to other members of the service, the hope may be that in the absence of reactions to their comments, the problematic or otherwise out-of-favour user will become bored or frustrated and leave the site, and that spammers and trolls will not create new accounts.
Read Comments on comments on comments by Jeff JarvisJeff Jarvis (BuzzMachine)
On the current On the Media, Bob Garfield launches into a screed on those who launch into screeds in online comments. He quotes Gawker — Gawker! — getting on his high-horse about comments. He talks with This American Life’s Ira Glass about why he got rid of comments on his site. But then he asks Glass something so leading — Garfield only tells about about his question but unfortunately does not reveal it to us — that Glass loses his constant cool for a moment in a rousing defense of vox pop. And then, for balance, Garfield has on a newspaper editor who — amen to this — says she thought we were way past this debate as she explains the value she gets from comments.
I read all the comments too as part of my rabbit hole this morning.
Read Dear Bob, by Jeff JarvisJeff Jarvis (BuzzMachine)
You caused a lot of discussion in your OtM piece about comments — and that discussion itself — in the comments on WNYC’s blog, in the comments on mine, and in blogs elsewhere — is an object lesson in the value of the conversation online.

But note well, my friend, that all of these people are speaking to you with intelligence, experience, generosity, and civility. You know what’s missing? Two things: First, the sort of nasty comments your own piece decries. And second: You. 

Important!

Annotated on February 25, 2020 at 10:54AM


The comments on this piece are interesting and illuminating, particularly all these years later. 
Annotated on February 25, 2020 at 11:07AM


Why can’t there be more sites with solid commentary like this anymore? Do the existence of Twitter and Facebook mean whe can’t have nice things anymore? 
Annotated on February 25, 2020 at 11:11AM

Read Comments on Comments | On The Media (web.archive.org)
There's been a bit of a backlash recently against the angry commenter on newspaper websites. Some are calling for newspapers to stop allowing comments sections all together. But what about democracy on the web? Bob, with the help of "This American Life"'s Ira Glass, ruminates on the dark side of the comments section.

I just wrote a long, considered, friendly, and I hope helpful comment here but — sorry, I have to see the irony in this once again — your system wouldn’t let me say anything longer tahn 1,500 characters. If you want more intelligent conversations, you might want to expand past soundbite. 

In 2008, even before Twitter had become a thing at 180 characters, here’s a great reason that people should be posting their commentary on their own blogs.

This example from 2008 is particularly rich as you’ll find examples on this page of Derek Powazek and Jeff Jarvis posting comments with links to much richer content and commentary on their own websites.

We’re a decade+ on and we still haven’t managed to improve on this problem. In fact, we may have actually made it worse.

I’d love to see On the Media revisit this idea. (Of course their site doesn’t have comments at all anymore either.)
Annotated on February 25, 2020 at 10:47AM

Read - Want to Read: Design For Community: The Art Of Connecting Real People In Virtual Places by Derek PowazekDerek Powazek (New Riders)

Communities are part of all successful web sites in one way or another. It looks at the different stages that must be understood: Philosophy: Why does your site need community? What are your measures of success?Architecture: How do you set up a site to createpositive experience? How do you coax people out of their shells and get them to share their experiences online?Design: From color choice to HTML, how do you design the look of a community area?Maintenance: This section will contain stories of failed web communities, and what they could have done to stay on track, as well as general maintenance tips andtricks for keeping your community garden growing.

book cover of Design For Community: The Art Of Connecting Real People In Virtual Places

Read The Unitive Web Community Group (w3.org)
Currently, there is a growing movement from the independence of the web, towards dominant companies. These companies offer organized information, but this comes at a price. We lose our independence more and more. The Unitive Web is a proposal to have both organized information and independence. It offers one generic approach closely compatible with the current web, which makes it possible to create a global open virtual space of information which is responsive and reliable. It offers open customization of user interaction, open bottom-up schema mapping, integration of (AI) algorithms, and facilitates in the protection of privacy. The aim of this group is to discuss any aspect of it and share specifications. For more information, see this <a rel="nofollow" href="https://youtu.be/lzXON9Eigtg">video about Unitive Web</a>.

Vaguely interesting, but let’s see what their video holds in store… I’m piqued by the idea of complexity theory embedded here, but not sure that they can directly influence the outcome so easily. This seems like a bunk idea somewhat grounded in popular science gone fringe.

Read 10 Ways Newspapers Can Improve Comments by Derek Powazek (Derek Powazek)

The other day Bob Garfield had a good kvetch about dumb comments on newspaper websites on his show, On The Media, and I posted my two cents, but I still don’t feel better. I think that’s because Bob’s partly right: comments do suck sometimes.

So, instead of just poking him for sounding like Grandpa Simpson, I’d like to help fix the problem. Here are ten things newspapers could do, right now, to improve the quality of the comments on their sites. (There are lots more, but you know how newspaper editors can’t resist a top ten list.)

I love this list which I feel is very solid. I also think that newspapers/magazines could do this with an IndieWeb approach to give themselves even more control over aggregating and guiding their conversations.

Instead of moving in the correct direction of taking more ownership, most journalistic outlets (here’s a recent example) seem to be ceding their power and audience away to social media. Sure people will have conversations about pieces out in the world, but why not curate and encourage a better and more substantive discussion where you actually have full control? Twitter reactions may help spread their ideas and give some reach, but at best–from a commentary perspective–Twitter and others can only provide for online graffiti-like reactions for the hard work.

I particularly like the idea of having an editor of the comment desk.