Either way, it’s about time we got over ourselves as some institution of capital-J Journalism and responded to readers in the comments sections of our sites, engaged with them on Twitter and answered their questions on Facebook.

As Robert Quigley at Old Media New Tricks writes, “People seem to think we’re a giant, uncaring media corporation. They’re pleasantly surprised when they get a real human response.”

For the sake of argument though, what’s the justification for maintaining a wall of silence? Why should we not respond to reader questions and concerns? Anyone?

This was among them:

My question is, why didn’t the reporter respond himself? If there’s a policy preventing him from doing so, why does the paper have that policy? Why aren’t reporters engaging with their readers online?

Dan noted that while our Web copy had only one comment, the pared-down AP version on the Billings Gazette’s Web site had almost a dozen comments and counting. Why the difference, especially considering that the AP version stripped out most of the story’s color?The simplest answer is that the Gazette’s Web site gets a lot more visitors than ours. It’s run by a bigger paper with more staff members, and it’s clear from the staff’s choice of stories that the Web site is targeting a statewide audience. Thanks to sheer scale, the Gazette’s going to get more comments on any given story than we will.

My second answer deals more with building a solid, respectful community online, and the example I used was Bozeman Talks.

I don’t know how many of you have visited Bozeman Talks lately (or ever), but if you watch it for very long, you learn that it’s a pretty closed-off community. Substantial comments from new people or outsiders are often met with derision and criticism from the site’s regulars. Even regulars bicker and argue with each other.

The result is a hostile environment, an unfriendly environment that doesn’t welcome new people and new ideas unless new commenters are persistent and belligerent enough to hammer out a space for themselves in the community.

It’s a path full of resistance, and while veteran forum users and Internet users might be used to that kind of vitriol, the casual user will probably not come back to the site.

What could have been done to avoid this situation? As I see it, when Bozeman Talks started, we basically turned the site on and let it run, expecting the community members to do all the work. That’s like building all the infrastructure for a city and inviting people to come build all the buildings themselves, without any help, regulation or government.

It’s a mess.

A better approach would have been to have moderators actively involved in the site from the start, participating in the conversations and shutting down people who cross the line.

Yes, heavy handed governance might stifle a few people who are looking for an open forum for whatever idiotic thing might pass through their minds, but in the long run it will make for a more friendly online community where constructive conversations can happen without being derailed by trolls.

How does all this apply to comments on news stories? Well, those comment systems are miniature communities that need moderation. A good moderator turns what would have otherwise been 10 disparate, shouted comments into a civil conversation.

Who does the moderating? Obviously, it should be someone familiar with the story. Yes, it could be an editor; that’s why a lot of newspapers these days are hiring communities editors, but the best moderation job will be done by — you guessed it — the reporters themselves.

A reporter should take part in the conversation about the news. A reporter should respond to commenters, line out people who are wrong, ask questions and answer questions. In other words, a reporter should be more than a faceless byline.

Yes, it’s more work. Yes, it takes a little time. And yes, the payoff is hard to see because it’s a long-term strategy. But if you reinforce in your readers’ minds that you’re a human being too, you’re likely to draw more civil comments; and if you stick at it, people will start to want to help you, to provide you with information and sources when you ask for them.

You can’t expect a healthy community to grow out of a one-way relationship. It doesn’t matter whether that community is online or in real life. Civility starts with equal participation.

Reader comments on Pantagraph.com often are informative, sparking serious dialogue on an issue of local or national interest. At other times, they are offensive and devoid of civility, the worst of which include personal attacks and/or assertions that have nothing to do with the story.

In recent weeks, we have seen too much of the latter on some local stories. Far too much. So, effective immediately and through the New Year’s holiday weekend, no comments will be allowed on new local content posted on Pantagraph.com.

This “cooling off” period is meant as a strong reminder to our online readers: that the reason comments are allowed in the first place is to foster a “spirit of community involvement and conversation.”

Comically, the paper added this postscript to its message some time later:

P.S. — Thank you for your comments on this decision. No more comments are being accepted on this matter as of 3:30 p.m. Dec. 31.

Makes me wonder what the comments were like on this particular article before they shut them off.

Anyway, this is not the way to improve the civility of your online community. Yes, these vitriolic, abusive commenters were violating the paper’s terms of service agreement or online behavior pact. And while you can legally hold these people accountable for behaving by the terms of that agreement, you can’t reasonably expect people to abide by the terms of an agreement they likely agreed to without reading it.

No, you can’t flash a page of legalese in front of a user and expect the community to moderate itself. A strong, respectful community needs moderators who care about the community. Most newspaper sites’ comments are fire-and-forget. That is, they are an feature tacked on because somebody thought that Web sites are supposed to have comments.

Rather than cutting off comments and punish those petulant children for their misbehavior, why not make the reporters at the paper take ownership of the comments on their articles. The reporters, who already have an investment in the story, can moderate the comments, participate in the discussion and help keep things civil without resorting to putting your readers in “time out.”

In short, Greenbaum made a call to the system administrator behind an IP address that left two vulgar comments. As a result, the commenter lost his job.

It’s a post that’s sparked some fascinating questions for me. What limits should we set for moderating comments? How far is too far? When do we get others (authorities) involved?

Read the post and the comments. Good stuff there.