WHAT RULES GOVERN THE DISCUSSION BOARDS?

When a new employee asked Thomas Edison what the rules at his lab were, Edison reportedly cracked, We don't have rules. We're trying to accomplish something. Great line, but in practice rules sometimes are needed. These are the rules HNN has implemented to govern the posting of comments on our threaded discussion boards.

Please do not post any comments that are defamatory, obscene, pornographic, abusive, or unlawful. If you violate the law or are guilty of defamation you may be held legally responsible.

Please do not post any advertisements for commercial products or services.

Please do not use our boards to promote surveys, contests, or chain letters.

Please be civil. No ad hominem attacks.

We reserve the right to bounce any person who violates our rules and to delete their comments.

Disclaimer: We do not attest to the accuracy or truthfulness of any of the views or facts posted on our discussion boards. Nor do we monitor every posted comment.

WHY CAN'T I READ COMMENTS I'VE POSTED ON THE SITE?

If you use an up-to-date browser to access the web, you should not have any trouble posting or reading comments on HNN's discussion boards. But readers who employ an old version of Netscape may face difficulties. Some comments may not be visible. Others may include truncated entries, including missing first sentences.

Our new publishing system unfortunately discriminates against readers who use old versions of Netscape. We apologize.

Note: If you use an old version of Netscape you should have no trouble posting comments even if you cannot read them from your computer.

WHY DO YOU LET BANNER ADS COVER THE TEXT OF ARTICLES?

Some readers complain that the advertising banners featured on HNN intrude on the text of articles. The problem is our system uses software that old Netscape browsers do not recognize. If you upgrade your browser the text of all articles will be plainly visible. We apologize for the inconvenience.

IS HNN CONSIDERED A SCHOLARLY JOURNAL?

HNN was created to give historians the opportunity to reach a national audience on issues of public concern. It is not a scholarly journal. It is a vehicle for scholars seeking to enrich the public debate.

WHY SHOULD THE PUBLIC WANT TO HEAR FROM HISTORIANS?

Historians are not entitled to be heard from simply because they are scholars. They must have something to say. But neither can the fact that they are scholars deprive them of the right to weigh in on matters of vital public importance. Indeed, the fact that they bring to the public debate a special expertise and sensibility derived from their studies is all the more reason to give them a hearing. Leaving the public square to people who lack the scholar's knowledge diminishes democracy.

Responding to news events in a timely and wise manner is a great challenge, of course. Fortunately, none of our contributors fail at the task all of the time and most succeed at it at least some of the time. That they may fail on occasion is no reason to conclude they should therefore never be given the chance to succeed ever again.

WHAT IS A BLOG?

Blog is short for "web log." It is a kind of common-place journal or diary kept on the web. Several features distinguish blogs from other forms on the web: they are frequently updated; they include lots of links to other sites; and most maintain a personal tone. Many celebrate blogs for opening the web up to voices the mainstream media often neglect. Like talk radio, most of the popular blogs are run by conservatives. HNN is the only site that features blogs by historians.

WHY DOES HNN FEATURE BLOGS? AREN'T THEY JUST VEHICLES FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SOUND OFF?

The challenge of writing a blog is particularly great given the pressure to keep it up to date. But doing a blog is not fundamentally different from writing articles that appear in other places on HNN. In both cases the pressure to publish something in a timely manner necessitates foregoing the slow and steady approach common in peer-reviewed journals. By the peer review standard, none of the articles we publish pass muster as none of them are peer-reviewed in advance; the peer reviewing comes after they have already reached the public. But if that standard is the only standard, then historians must retreat from the journalistic fields and leave the harvesting of interesting views and opinions to others.

This does not sound like a reasonable approach to us. In the fast-paced world in which we now live, public attention is focused on issues for ever briefer periods of time. If scholars want their analyses to be taken into consideration--and why shouldn't they?--they have to jump into the debate early and with forcefulness.

HNN is committed to the scholarly discussion of issues in a timely manner. A person can achieve a scholarly analysis even if they write fast. Their very familiarity with the issues at hand gives them an advantage over others in arriving at a considered opinion in a quick period of time.

It may be argued that blogs fall into a separate category because they need to be updated constantly. But what is a blog? It is nothing more than an old fashioned common-place journal in a new setting. It gives the reader the chance to look over the shoulder of a historian who's reacting daily to events.

Blogs are so new a device on the Internet that no standards have yet evolved to govern their use. Anything goes on a blog. One of the functions that HNN can perform is to help establish standards for blogs. The only way we can do this is by trial and error. Slowly over time as readers provide more and more feedback--readers like you!--we will get a better sense of what should appear in a blog written by a historian and what should not.

Unique though a blog may be, the speediness required by a blog is not unique. When a reporter rings up Arthur Schlesinger Jr. for a comment on an issue in the news Schlesinger has even less time than a blogger to get his thoughts in order before committing to a certain analysis or viewpoint. Yet no one argues that the public is not benefited by Schlesinger's participation. He brings to bear in an instant a lifetime's worth of reading and reflection from which everybody can benefit, whether they agree with him or not.

DOES HNN SCREEN ARTICLES FOR VITUPERATIVE STATEMENTS?

Deciding where the line falls between personal vituperation and freedom of the press is, of course, a challenge. The line moves constantly. What is acceptable today wasn't acceptable a decade ago. What can be said about a politician with power is different from what should be said about a historian, even a prominent one. Applying the same standard to a historian as a politician is unfair given the disproportionate power that they exercise in our society. But what is personal and what is political? The distinction is a pretty fine one. And as the women's movement made clear, what is personal is often political.

Because publishing a piece confers legitimacy on it, it is vital to screen out pieces that are solely vituperative. But what about a piece that is both vituperative and educational? Many pieces fall into this category. And deciding what is and is not vituperative is often difficult, liberals and conservatives reaching different conclusions.

Then there are the articles that seem worthwhile as artifacts of the age--primary sources, in effect--valuable not so much for the analyses they offer as for the evidence they provide of the broad range of American opinion.

Completely ignoring writers who indulge in strong personal statements would be a disservice to our readers, leaving them with a falsely narrow impression of the parameters of the national debate. At the same time it is inappropriate for HNN to appear to endorse attacks which are needlessly personal or incendiary.

A practical solution, fortunately, is at hand given the way HNN is now organized. Pieces that we publish in full -- these are the pieces listed on the homepage -- must pass the Above Board Test, meaning that strictly vituperative statements will be disallowed. But to give the reader a clear picture of the wide range of statements being made we include excerpts in ROUNDUP and other places where appropriate. Excerpting a piece does not confer on it the HNN seal of approval. Plainly libelous statements of course will never be published anywhere on the site, though determining what is and is not libelous is a matter of judgment.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ROUNDUP DEPARTMENT?

HNN originally was conceived as primarily a national platform for historians wishing to comment on current events. This remains our primary function as is evident on our homepage, where week after week historians write about news subjects within their area of expertise.

But as the website evolved we added various features that we thought our readers would find interesting and useful. The most popular feature has turned out to be ROUNDUP, which includes excerpts from the media about various issues related in some way to history.

We don't vouch for the accuracy or scholarship of the excerpts. We simply reprint them. The purpose is to give readers in one handy place a broad sampling of American (and indeed world) opinion. In effect, we turn every reader into his own Walt Whitman, strolling through the alleys of the Internet to see what strange and wonderful and often ugly things the world has to offer. Everyman his own journalist, to paraphrase Carl Becker.

But even the ugly?

Walter Lippman in the 1920s pointed out that journalism is about creating pictures in our minds of what the real world is like, a most difficult task. How much more difficult, indeed impossible, it is to attain that goal if we blind ourselves to sights that make us shudder or shrink in horror.

DOES HNN ACCEPT SUBMISSIONS "OVER THE TRANSOM"?

HNN encourages readers to send in articles for possible publication concerning subjects in their area of expertise.

Articles should either tell the reader something new or frame an old issue in a new way. Articles may include the author's opinion but primarily serve as vehicles for informed analysis with an emphasis on history.

HNN encourages the wide dissemination of information and therefore allows other publications to reprint our articles unless the author expressly requests copyright protection.

Please be sure to tell us how you would like to be identified.

If possible, articles should be forwarded by email as a Microsoft WORD attachment. If this is impossible, please simply paste the article into an email. Submissions should be sent to Rick Shenkman at the following address: editor@historynewsnetwork.org.

Article length may vary depending on subject matter. Most articles run about 1,000 words.

WHY DOESN'T HNN ALLOW READERS TO POST COMMENTS USING A PSEUDONYM?

Among the great strengths of HNN are our discussion boards, which are free wheeling, often imaginative, and usually stimulating. But it can equally be said that the discussion boards in the past were one of the great weaknesses of HNN. Too often they featured hyperbola instead of thoughtfulness, vile vulgar language, and rank racist or anti-Semitic barbs.

The question we faced was how to fix the boards so that we kept what worked while ridding ourselves of what was patently offensive. We tried several measures. We introduced rules of civility. We began removing offensive comments. We banned a small number of serial rabble rousers. And still the discussion boards became havens for comments so patently offensive they made grown people cringe.

In a renewed effort to put an end to trash talk on HNN we finally decided to turn to a technological solution by implementing a registration system.

Only readers who register with HNN are able to post comments. They are required to post under their real names. To make sure they are who they say they are they have to provide their email address. Once a reader registers the system dispatches an email to their registered email address. They then have to respond in order to be able to post. Once a reader registers in this manner they can post as often as they like without reregistering. Email addresses are hidden, but the readers' names appear on the site.

Flagrant violators of HNN's standards will be banned. Offensive comments will be deleted.

It is our hope that by holding people responsible for their posts we will be able to discourage irresponsibility on the boards.

Placing our hopes in technology is as American as apple pie. We hope that in this case the hope is not misplaced.