Fabian Pascal and Alf Pedersen are complaining endlessly about Computerworld having censored some comments of theirs, in response to blog posts of mine (the first of which was a response to Alf’s blog post in response to my August column). They even seem to have gotten Tom Kyte worked up about it.
So let me be very, very clear.
1. I never had the right or ability to edit or censor comments.
2. I opposed almost all the editing and censoring that did occur.
3. I vehemently opposed the policy of editing comments (mine or anybody else’s) without a posted notice to the effect that they’d been edited, because that amounts to putting words into somebody’s mouth they didn’t actually say. This is the prime reason I no longer blog at Computerworld. (Had Computerworld had a posted warning about the likelihood of editing, as newspapers have on the Letters to the Editor page, I might have felt less vehement. But they have no such notice, or if they do it’s buried out of sight in a long legalistic Terms of Service page somewhere.)
4. I don’t recall ever suggesting the removal or editing of any comment whatsoever, except for one garbled non sequitur that wasn’t in a DBMS2-related thread.
5. I have a pretty good idea of why some posts were censored, based on direct communication with the editor in question, and it had to do with tone and nastiness and promotion of people’s websites, not with the substance of their comments. There’s only a slight chance I’m wrong about that. Indeed, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have the technological knowledge to understand, for example, the main differences between Pedersen’s opinion and mine.
Let me stress that all this applies only to the blog editor, who’s a very different kind of person from the other editors it has been my pleasure to work with at Computerworld.