Today is "Peace and Goodwill Reader Comments Day" on sj-r.com, the website of the Springfield, Illinois State Journal-Register.  In order to break through the tedious negativity that dominates the Reader Comment boards found beneath its online articles, sj-r.com is invoking the spirit of the holiday season and not posting "critical, cynical, sarcastic, whiney or otherwise Scrooge-ish" comments for one 24-hour period.

"From 7 a.m. Wednesday through 7 a.m. Thursday, the only comments that will make it onto the site will be ones that follow that old saying from mom: 'If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.'" writes sj-r.com's online editor.  "We'll still allow some debate on the issues, but you're going to need to be really, really nice to each other."  [To see the entire article, click here.]

This past Sunday, the Reader Advocate for Tucson's Arizona Daily Star and its StarNet website wrote that "[s]even months after StarNet launched a feature allowing readers to add comments to stories, Star editors are rethinking the whole idea because of the coarseness of those online postings."

According to the Daily Star's executive editor, "In the past month, though, more and more comments are violating our standards. Instead of offering constructive criticism, too many posts are just plain coarse.  While we added the reader comments feature to give readers a place to talk, StarNet is still our house. And our editors and staff simply do not want guests who make vulgar, abusive, obscene, defamatory and hateful comments. If you want to live in that kind of neighborhood, go create your own online forum.  Meanwhile, we've removed large chunks of comment today while we consider the future of the reader comments feature."  [Click here for the full article.]

While the situations at these two newspaper websites are qualitatively different from ours here on Bakersfield.com--both of these involve reader comments on news stories, while we have community-written blogs; sj-r.com moderates and screens comments before posting, while we do not--it's nice to be reminded that we're not grappling with these issues in a vacuum.  How do balance seemingly competing needs and interests in this new, democratizing information age?  Freedom of expression vs. the desire for respect and community feeling, anonymity vs. transparency, consumer vs. producer--we know that these are false dichotomies, that reality is much messier than either/or propositions.

That's what makes building this new digital world both so challenging and so important.  It's an interesting coincidence that this stuff is happening at the same time that Time Magazine has named "You" its Person of the Year for 2006.   Time's cover story explains its thinking in this way:  "that individuals are changing the nature of the information age, that the creators and consumers of user-generated content are transforming art and politics and commerce, that they are the engaged citizens of a new digital democracy."  And in that very term, in that very idea, "new digital democracy," we are reminded of a responsibility that comes with this new freedom.  Democracy isn't anarchy.  It takes work, it takes negotiation, it takes communication.

As we look toward the new year here on Bakersfield.com, I look forward to doing that work with all of you.