But he’s wrong, too. Start-ups filled with people who’d be using social media and social networking tools don’t really need someone to show them the way; they can just trust their people to do the right thing. But large media companies, ones that have resisted social media (at least somewhat), do need a voice and they need a person pushing reporters and editors to understand what they need to do. They also need people — dedicated people, not catch as catch can like so many other newspaper projects — to help train the staff.

I know that I’m biased, since my job is just that, but even if it weren’t, I think I’d see the necessity. No one needed to explain Twitter to me, but I know that other people need help. There’s a whole range of experience in newsrooms with regard to social media. Some people just get it, others want to ignore it.  We need to get everyone comfortable in this new space, and putting one person in charge of doing just that makes sense.

Smarter people than me are weighing in, but I think I might be able to add something to this conversation, since I’m training the staff at The Gazette on using social media.

My two-line social media policy:

If you’re using an account for work purposes, identify yourself as an employee of The Gazette.

If posting something would embarass you or the company, or call your professional reputation into question, DON’T POST IT.

That’s it. I give out pages of best practices, too, but those two get to the heart of the issue. Just as we would have never in the past expressed a political preference, we should refrain from doing so now. if it seems like common sense, it kinda is, but it still bears repeating.

The biggest issue people seem to be taking with the WSJ policy is that it shuts down transparency. It forbids staffers from discussing how a story was reported, written or edited. Bad advice, and among the reasons so many newspapers are failing at social media. When there was one edition a day, the story was all that mattered. Now, reporters need to be transparent at all stages. How they source and write the story is important, and so is the discussion afterward.

Rather than grasping and trying to control something (since no one’s been able to control falling readership or declining revenue), newspaper executives need to trust their reporters, calm down and embrace social media.

I can’t close any more eloquently than Patrick Thornton did.

Just use common sense, and common sense says not being social on social media doesn’t make much sense at all.

Ha ha, but there’s a a sad truth in the joke. I’ve written about comments before, but one thing I’ve been trying to figure out is what expectations we should have for our commenters. I’m not talking rules here: most sites already have plenty of rules about what we will and won’t allow. Rather, I’m talking about the kind of behavior we WANT our commenters to engage in, rather than the behavior we DON’T WANT them to engage in.

Clay Shirky talks about this at length in his essay: A Group is its Own Worst Enemy.

And we do need to empower members of the community to create their own standards; this isn’t just our community. But it is useful to set a baseline. How about:

• Be civil. Don’t say things to someone or about someone that you wouldn’t say in their presence.
• Be honest. That means more than just not lying, it also covers half-truths and evasions.
• Be yourself. If you post as an anonymous coward then we won’t take you nearly as seriously as if you’re clearly a real person.
• Add value to the comment threads you take part in. Look at blogs like Gizmodo and Jalopnik. They have well-informed, generally useful comments. There’s some level of idiocy, and that’s OK. Sometimes it’s even entertaining. But it’s not nearly as bad as it would be on, say, Digg. One of the reason the commenters behave is the judicious use of the ban hammer and that might not be the model we want to use, but it does work.
• When you’re being provocative, do it for reason. Rather than writing things for shock value, try to enlighten and inform your fellow commentariat.
• Tread lightly. Some threads feel like a barroom, while others feel like a church. Be mindful of those tones, and don’t disrupt them needlessly.
• Lastly, another don’t: Don’t be a troll. Nuff said.

So what would you add to these expectations? Am I being overzealous on some of these?

Today, Evan Williams, co-founder of Twitter, wrote on the blog today that IM support, which has been gone for months now, won’t be back any time soon. That’s going to disappoint plenty of people, but it’s not such a bad thing. First of all, it’s been gone for months already, second of all, what good is IM support if the system itself is shaky? Twitter went through some really rough growth spurts earlier this year, with many people threatening to leave for good because of spotty connection and the seemingly omnipresent fail whale. They’ve gotten better. Not perfect, but much much better. It would really be a shame to lose that for IM support.

But more importantly, Williams’ entry makes Twitter more transparent. Web 2.0 and social media are supposed to be about transparency and connecting with users, after all, and saying you’re going to do something you have no intention of actually doing is a great way to alienate your user base.

It’s dangerous to not give your users what they want, but it’s much more dangerous to lie to them.

CNN has a twitter feed already, and it’s used to deliver breaking news. A pretty obvious use for it, actually. After all, if you can’t explain your story in 140 characters, then there’s something wrong. And since it’s real-time, it shows up on your phone or your screen more quickly than you might get an email. But there are other uses, too.

If you can find people who use Twitter, not only do you have a ready-made tip line, you can also make sure that you’re actually writing about the things the people in your community care about. Following people in the community makes sure that you know what they’re talking about.

One blogger, Michael Arrington at Techcrunch, had problems with his Comcast internet service. He vented his frustration on Twitter, other bloggers picked it up, and he got service restored. In his post explaining all that, he talked about Twitter as an early-warning system for companies. It can easily be an early warning system for newspapers, too.

Is there something big happening? People are talking about it, and we need to find out where. That way we can make sure their voices get included, makning sure the stories we’re righting are accurate and that they resonate with people.

But it’s also a way to start a conversation with the community. If a reporter uses it, they can let people know what they’re doing and also talk about the stories. News isn’t a one-way street anymore, and the more ways we can make readers part of the conversation, the better off we’ll be.

Finally, it’s a way for reporters and editors to keep in touch. Reporters can tweet to keep their editors (and others who follow them) up-to-date when on assignment, including when a meeting goes long, or something interesting happens that might change how the story is played. A text message might do the same thing, of course, but this has the added advantage of making our operations even more transparent, a good thing.

So do any reporters out there use Twitter in their job?

I don’t want to get rickroll’d, and if I’m following a link at work, I’d really like to know where it’s taking me. So here’s my million-dollar idea: develop a service that shortens a URL, but still brings up the original URL in your browser’s status bar. I know, I know, it’s called a link, but you can’t do that on Twitter. To be fair, Tinyurl does offer a preview link, but there are a few problems. One, the link submitter has to use it, which most don’t; and two, it makes the url longer, which is contrary to the point of tinyurl, isn’t it?

Since I’m a wealthy member of the media elite, I release this idea onto the Internet. Unless someone figures out how to make money off of it, in which case I want a cut.

When it came time to announce our ideas, every group had the same theme: MySpace for ___. One group wanted to make MySpace for pets. Another wanted to make MySpace into a glossy print product featuring high school athletes. You get the idea.

When we were leaving, I asked my publisher what she thought, and she was pretty pleased with all of the ideas. Her take was that MySpace was so successful, why shouldn’t we use their idea to make money? What she missed was that MySpace (and Facebook, and Google, and Flickr and any number of other successful ideas) succeeded because it did something new and interesting. Taking an idea and barely re-working it doesn’t qualify as innovation. Especially when you miss the point entirely, like the glossy magazine people did.

As I’m writing this, I logged into MySpace for the first time in weeks. In 2006, I logged in every day. If you’d have told me then that things like Facebook and Twitter would have replaced that, I don’t know if I’d have believed you. And I’m sure the reaction at the conference would have been along the lines of “What’s Twitter?”

There are plenty of great ideas floating around out there, and people in the media have them. Instead of trying to just re-purpose things that other people have done, we need to implement those truly new and original ideas.