Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Daily Mail - The On Mumsnet This Week Column - part 374, appendix 5

601 replies

JustineMumsnet · 06/09/2009 12:20

Goodday Mumsnetters,
Now I know we said we'd abide by the results of the poll and the poll's not quite due to close yet, so first off we hope you'll forgive us for bringing this matter to an early conclusion.

We've thought about this a bit more (thanks to everyone for their considered input - it's been generally helpful to us though not always fun) and we've decided to ask the DM not to run this column under any circumstances.

We've said all along that we were torn by the column. When push came to shove we thought, on balance, we would prefer though it to exist rather than not, assuming we had editorial control (explanation why later on). But NOT if the majority of Mumsnetters were strongly against it running.

I don't think the poll shows that the majority of MN is actually against it, as it happens - I know there's some debate here - I think it shows 43% are. But I think the whole process has shown that those who are against are very very strongly against whilst those who don't mind the column in one form or another don't feel particularly strongly about it (save perhaps Daftpunk ). The 43% odd would never be happy with the column running and I think that therefore it would cause ongoing acrimony, which is of course not what we're about.

What we are about is making parents' lives easier and we don't exclude DM readers from that. MN is open to all.

However, a weekly column could and has been interpreted as a brand alignment - and it's not really as some have pointed out the right fit for us - which is why we wouldn't have sought it in the first instance.

For anyone who's been upset by/ caught in the crossfire of this debate - MP in particular and indeed, Leah Hardy - I apologise. A Mumsnetter has just written to me to say the following (she agreed that I could quote her here):

"I feel the flames of crises are fuelled by MNHQ's over willingness to collaborate. Offering Mumsnetters an opportunity to help steer, but knowing they all want to go in different directions is always going
to be carnage. They can never be of one voice. That's what makes Mumsnet interesting and wonderful, isn't it?"

I think on reflection this is spot on - we have always tried to be as inclusive as possible here at MNHQ. Our answer to most dilemmas is usually "Let's see what the Mnetters think". But on polarising issues like this one this is perhaps a mistake. It all becomes a bit too Lord of the Fliesish, and innocent folk get caught in the crossfire.

A final thought about the nature of MN and how we go about making it viable. Much bigger beasts than us are trying to work out how they can make their websites work in terms of paying the bills. Many are mooting charging in some way for access. Mumsnet is free and we probably turn down as much advertising as we take. We do our best to operate as ethically and communally as possible but we have costs that are rising as we grow - servers, people, offices etc - and it's a balancing act.

Mumsnet is big and successful in many ways but it does not generate huge amounts of revenue and profit. We don't have and can't afford a big PR machine - it's me!

But we want to do tonnes of things - run campaigns like our miscarriage one that could benefit lots of folk, improve the site with new features, spread the word so more can have access to the good advice available here. To do that we need to get out there a bit and we need to generate some revenue.

Being in the Daily Mail every week was obviously one way of getting out there - but not perhaps, as many of you have argued, the right way.

So we'll ask them to stop and keep you posted.

Have a lovely rest of weekend.

MNHQ

OP posts:
welliemum · 07/09/2009 00:10

Thing is, there's a huge conflict of interest in all this.

Anybody who thinks about the issue for a moment knows that MN is public and that they'd be mad to publish really personal stuff here.

But MN is explicitly describing itself as a place which supports parents. So, logically, we should only seek or offer support about non-personal stuff because yes, we know that everything we write here is public.

But imagine an Active Conversations which consists entirely of people seeking support about how to get their windows really clean. It would be beyond deadly. No-one would visit and MN would ultimately fail as a business.

And at the same time there would be all these people with desperate, horrible problems and no-one to turn to in RL. And people who've come through desperate, horrible problems and would love to help out someone else in the same boat.

So, MNHQ doesn't want us to stop posting personal stuff.

People in distress don't want to stop posting personal stuff.

People with advice to offer don't want to stop posting personal stuff.

But if we post personal stuff we're buggered.

So what to do? IMO MN can't continue to call itself a support site, encouraging people to post sensitive stuff, and at the same time refuse to protect vulnerable posters.

Protection need only take the form of the facility to delete your own posts when you need to - nothing more elaborate than that.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 00:13

Well, I know someone who knows someone in radio......

foronethreadonly · 07/09/2009 00:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 00:15

Nail on head, wellie.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 07/09/2009 00:19

but i DO NOT want justine to think that i am having any sort of go at her and MNHQ, because i am emphatically not, and i do think that they aim for the fair and good solution when they have all the information. i just think that some of this stuff bears looking at again.

welliemum · 07/09/2009 00:19

< makes Aitch's brownie suddenly disappear >

Omnomnom, v. good, cheers.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 07/09/2009 00:20

oh, an yyy wellie.

welliemum · 07/09/2009 00:21

LOL at brownie cross post.

I agree, Aitch. [quiche]

gigglewitch · 07/09/2009 00:22

wellie, that is so so spot on and sums the entire thing up (why has it taken the rest of us so many threads and still not do it that well?)

foronethreadonly · 07/09/2009 00:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

foronethreadonly · 07/09/2009 00:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hunkermunker · 07/09/2009 00:27

I've not posted on this before (or if I have, it was in the Jurassic period [vague]), but I did vote no in the poll and I am very glad that MN won't be twinned with the DM as a permanent and ongoing "in bed with" alliance.

I've had individual posts deleted in the past, but am far too vain to want all of my posts deleted wholesale I mean, I have to have SOMETHING to show for the last five years, eh?

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 00:30

Exactly oops.

The archives are a huge commodity. Therefore the contributers are and to preserve one, you are compromising the other.

Much more thought and discussion needs to happen to ensure that all parties are happy. I personally dont see what impact one single poster could have on the archives since most threads have more than two posters on, and sense can be made from those.

I also think that it is fair enough for someone to want to physically close a chapter on their life and put it away for good.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 00:31

awww @ "chickling"

gigglewitch · 07/09/2009 00:32

so we all have to post anything we might be embarrassed about in the future, in Chat

welliemum · 07/09/2009 00:33

What I meant, onethread, is that we should be able to delete our own posts, not ask MN (and have to wait if they're busy). Loads of boards have that facility.

We're adults, we should be able to take responsibility for ourselves. We should have the option of

a) only posting about window cleaning techniques
b) posting personal stuff, then deleting once we've had the answers we were looking for
c) posting personal stuff and leaving it there forever for the DM to lift
d) or whatever combination of the above suits us.

It allows us a bit of sensible risk taking if we feel the risk is justified by the benefits - which is after all exactly the sort of decision we make all the time as parents.

hunkermunker · 07/09/2009 00:33

Maybe we could all swap nicknames once a fortnight? That would make utter nonsense of trying to work out who anyone was And can you imagine?!

foronethreadonly · 07/09/2009 00:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

gigglewitch · 07/09/2009 00:34

pmsl hunker

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 00:36

uh oh. Someone has let the fuckit goblins out of hunker's head

welliemum · 07/09/2009 00:39

I am sitting on my hands to stop myself from going to see if the "fuckitgoblins" username has been taken. [need life]

foronethreadonly · 07/09/2009 00:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 00:40

aww bugger.
it's gorn

bibbitybobbityhat · 07/09/2009 00:41

We have a freely available name-changing facility on this site, though, which enables us to post sensitive stuff anonymously.

Expecting to be able to post private things anonymously on the www without any of the potential infringement issues is impossible, isn't it?

Or am I missing something? I am genuinly asking, no hidden agenda or anything.

gigglewitch · 07/09/2009 00:41

oh lordy will you lot stop it I have tears running down my face and my ribs hurt