and, whoa…what a mighty spark…there’s a lot of protesting going on, but i honestly can’t get bogged down in all the behind the scenes politics of WLDC.

Katie T, i’m dropping you a line and you can totally make a reservation under a fake name to prove me wrong.

cheers, and wow – what does everybody actually do for a living? I WISH i had that much time to blogalot.

Jennifer

Not that I’m bitter or anything (seriously, I swear), but I did pay a teensy bit of attention to the Best DJ category, for obvious reasons, and having been a runner up last year, I thought there might be a chance – popularity contest or not… Honestly, I’ve never heard of any of the 3 people mentioned. In looking at them online, I had a hard time figuring out if they even LIVE in DC…

AAAAAANYWAY – back to the FF/integrity/critique discussion… (heart you all, btw…)

The idea behind WLDC was always that it would be, ultimately, “our” site, where “us” are the people who write for it. To put that in context, one of the catalysts for us starting WLDC was that in our previous blog home, it had become very clear that no matter how hard we worked on the site, it would never be “ours,” and fundamental elements of it could be changed by the people who owned it, whether they had any personal investment in the blog community or not. So, We Love DC is meant to be a fairly egalitarian effort, with all authors being stakeholders in the site.

That said, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there are rather a LOT of us. There were 12 or so who came over from the previous site, and we’ve added several since then. Someone has got to keep track of all that. We knew we wanted predictably-rotating content, and we knew we wanted to have some standards of quality because we want to be proud of our work, so as a GROUP, we agreed upon some rules. Our style guide is loose, dealing mostly with making sure we’re allowed to use the images we use and that posts are grammatical and whatnot, because again, the site is supposed to be a collection of divergent voices.

But then once you have a style guide, SOMEONE has to enforce it. Which meant that we needed editors. Tom was City Captain at our old site, so by mutual agreement, he continues on in that role at WLDC. Don was co-captain with him, and he maintains that role, again by mutual agreement. When group discussion needs to be brought to a close and a decision be made incorporating the feedback, it’s usually them, but always in accordance with the will of the group. Ben Rome and I are “editorial coordinators,” which basically means we are project managers. We keep track of the Features calendar. We monitor the site for broken stuff and fix it. We wrangle new contributors. We enforce the style guide. But again, all of this is done as the agreed-upon representatives of the group. The group sets the policy, and then delegates the job of enforcing it to the “editorial staff.”

When Tom pulled the post last month, he did so after extensive consultation with anyone from WLDC he could get hold of (which, due to the late hour on a Sunday night, was not many) as well as some other people who are trusted and known to the group. His job as “editor” really just means he has to figure out what the group wants, and do THAT. He took responsibility for it as Editor, not because his word is law, but because he had been able to confer with so few people about it, and because he wanted to put a face on the decision so it wouldn’t be like the post just mysteriously disappeared.

As for comments, we have an internal policy that basically goes: WLDC authors are also WLDC readers, and should therefore feel free to comment on anything they like. As we do happen to be friends, that often means that we agree with each other in the comments and disagree with someone else. We’re compatible people; it’s why we’ve come together this way. But it happens almost as frequently that we disagree. And when that happens, we disagree with each other in the comments as well.

For disclosure, I’m one of the editorial types running around here.

And I’m staying neutral. Interesting discussion, to say the least. :) So rest assured, there is at least one dispassionate soulless editor on overwatch here. :D

(Well, I stand behind my comment on my disappointment WLDC didn’t get a mention…)

The phrase “attacking our writer” is very different than “attacking our friend.” By having anyone with the title of editor (or 4), it implies control, a company, and a brand. And if someone with the title of editor uses such rhetoric, it sounds like it comes from WLDC, not a friend of the writer.

If you want to be seen as a brand that covers DC, then there should be a clear editorial policy in place. When I get a work email I disagree with, my boss and co-workers (all friends) don’t also write and tell the person how very wrong they are. That’s also a difference between writing as a team (sharing tips) and ganging up on anyone who disagrees with the post. It begins to feel very insular – and less about loving DC than loving each others’ thoughts.

An editor is the person who takes responsibility for the final content, a role Tom made very clear when pulled a story last month (and wrote a great post about it and the reasons behind his choice). Sometimes people serve the role of editor, and sometimes friend? Keep the personal out of it, or else the point of this blog is for friends to be writing together and commenting with one another. If that’s what you want, great: make that clear by not having an editorial staff.

I want to love WLDC and feel like part of the community. Sometimes the blurred lines make that difficult.

Krempasky kept it briefer and more on point than any of us when he said she should have made her next-to-last paragraph her first. She could have gone with a “there were issues in the beginning, back when that October review was written, and we’ve acknowledged them and addressed them.” She could have said they thought they belonged on the list, were glad that their customers thought so, and hoped that Katie and others wouldn’t let reports from the past keep them from trying the restaurant going forward.

Admittedly, I live with a PR professional so I get this beaten into me all the time and am a little sensitive to it. But I don’t think you need to have professional exposure to have wrinkled your nose at how Jennifer responded instead.

As I read it, her message boiled down to:

Paragraph 1: Quibbling over reader best-of vs editor best-of and complaint that readers might not realize it, though it was linked to. Well, perhaps, but to me when someone’s first response to criticism is to question the validity of the source I’m primed to skepticism about what they say next.

P2: Complaint that reader votes are just as valid as Katie’s, which doesn’t seem pertinent. When did anyone claim different? Also, isn’t that a question a reader has to answer for themselves when reading anything anywhere? Reasonable point about timeliness, though somewhat overshadowed by tone.

P3: Reasonable point about Katie trying FF, but I think “implying that FF shouldn’t be on the Best Of list” is a bit of an over-reach. You can question something’s place on a BO list and still think it’s perfectly good – it’s a question of whether other things are BETTER. I can laugh at your assertion that you’re one of the most brilliant minds of your generation without thinking you’re a drooling idiot.

P4: An admission of being associated with FF, to her credit, though P2 says “after they’d opened,” (emphasis mine) which makes me wonder if this admission has been planned. Perhaps she joined after opening, but it raises questions in a reader’s mind. Then a concession about the value of blog posts & reviews, followed up with an accusation of “running down” a local business, combined with a snide comment about whether it’s consistent with our name. This just doesn’t track, since the very topic at hand is “best of” this area, which means that it’s not possible to say something is undeserving of being on the list without indicating that some other local business should have been on there.

P5: More listed accolades, capped with an implication that people are packing in so clearly your opinion is wrong and meaningless. Which is fine if that’s the attitude they want to take. But if I heard a host or hostess respond to someone expressing concern at the front desk “well we’ve got no shortage of people who want to be in here” I wouldn’t think much of that response.

P6: Come in and “actually try the restaurant out,” on us.

I’m not FF’s PR flak and they can choose to respond however they like. However it’s not an attitude I find real delightful in a place I might take my patronage and I think it’s fair to question whether it reflects well on FF.

I do concur, however, that it’s nicer than a dickpunch.

I’m happy to substitute another WLDC staffer’s opinion where I am lacking my own – that’s the beauty of writing for a group blog. I trust Tom and Tiff’s judgment, and then when Jenn Larsen gets in on it to boot, I’m pretty sure I’ve got my answer. I don’t think the fact that I haven’t tried FF, when my fellow writers have, should keep me from asking why it is chosen as “best” – plus I can then trust the comments, ranging from agreeing to strongly disagreeing to share other opinions. Our comment board is open to everyone, and that’s one of the best things about WLDC.

I don’t really see a practical difference there, unless you’re asking if money is involved (it’s not, at the moment).

Can you clarify your question?

Sorry about that Tom.

Of course.

“I think we can all agree that Jennifer’s tone wasn’t productive to FF…”

Actually, I don’t agree with that at all. And aren’t the comments a forum where we can, in fact, disagree? It is admirable that Tim “feels protective of his friends,” but sometimes those comments read as attacks. If this is a blog run by a bunch of friends who want to discuss DC, then that should be made clear. The branding of the site suggests something different: that this is a site about DC with a staff of writers (who, like many co-workers, might be friends).

p.s. – Jenn, of course they’ll be on their best behavior. That’s why most food reviewers don’t accept free meals – they prefer to be incognito.

First: Scythian
Second: Tom McBride & the Whig Party
Third: Batala Washington

Who? What? When? You know Scythian blasted out an e-mail to their group list to get the win (not that there’s anything wrong with that). So when the readers pick Founding Farmers as their #1, it just doesn’t hold much weight in my book.

As for my dining experience at Founding Farmers, well, it was pretty bad. I went with two friends and we managed to score a place at the bar rather than waiting over an hour for a table. I ordered the prime rib because, “At Founding Farmers you can trust that everything we serve is sourced from fine, high quality family farms, and will be prepared with the utmost care and attention by our own very talented and dedicated Chef Graham Duncan.”

First, the food was barely warm by the time it got to me. Next, the meat was tough, chewy, and lacking in flavor – not my idea of good prime rib. It came with mac ‘n cheese and the prime rib was placed ON TOP of it, drowning it in juices. Mmmm, nothing like watery mac ‘n cheese!

The wine selection was decent though, and to cap the night off our bartender/waiter gave us free shots which he partook in. I can’t argue with that!

Maybe that’s all changed as Jennifer indicates, maybe not.

I didn’t even write about my experience there because I didn’t think it was worth it. If that’s the atmosphere they want, then they don’t want me, and that’s fine.

Maybe I’ve unduly influenced Katie not to try FF. My apologies. Have at it, girl. Just remember, when they know you’re coming, they’re on their best behavior.

Besides, to the extent that there is any “official watering hole of WeLoveDC.com,” it’s Science Club, not Murky. :)

It’s been a pretty crappy weather week here in town, and with all the Spring Fever I’ve got stored up, I’m desperate for a sixpack of Oberon and a public park and some farkin’ sunshine. I can’t be alone on that count, and I think it might be affecting the discussion here.

I think we can all agree that Nick actly poorly back in August or whenever he threatened to punch Jeff Simmermon in his junk after Jeff threatened to burn his coffee shop down. I think we can all agree that Jennifer’s tone wasn’t productive to FF, and I think we can all agree that everyone would be better served if everything was made of puppies and unicorns and rainbows.

I have a tendency to get involved here because I care about the people that write here, both commenters and authors. We try very, very hard not to exercise honest-to-God editorial control, and we’re working on written standards for the four editors/editorial coordinators will edit posts. It’s a hard line to define, because community standards are ever-changing. I comment, almost always, wearing just my personal hat, and all the trappings that it comes with.

So yeah, cut everyone else some slack, and let’s all get a beer, eh?

Anyway, I think you’re mixing in a few reactions here, Fedward. Tom does tend to weigh-in on threads where someone snipes at or criticizes WLDC writers. I think that’s a credit to his loyalty. I can certainly see how someone might view that tendency as him acting in an editorial sense as our big cheese rather than as just another reader & writer who feels protective of his friends.

It’s one of the conundrums of writing in the blog world and also that of writing on a smaller scale and in a causal voice. Even if the WaPo ombudsman was inclined to troll the comments on the postings from Weingarten, Fisher, etc all.. there’s no way he’d have time. If he did, however, there would be a very reasonable question about what capacity he’s acting in.

We’re not the size of WaPo, nor do we purport to follow the traditional news standards and practices, so Tom is able to watch all the stuff that goes by and participate. Most of us want to participate, for that matter, because we’re in this venture for the love of it. We also really enjoy the interactive nature of this media and like the back-and-forth.

I’ll agree it does introduce the issue that sometimes the back-and-forth is author to reader and sometimes it’s just person to person. It’s probably a bigger conundrum when it comes to comments from Tom, in so far as he’s where the buck stops on WLDC issues.

I think that’s a reasonable issue to raise, but you’re also mixing in a difference in his reaction to FF’s snarky response here to how he reacts to Murky’s often snarky (or worse) response to things. I see how those two are mixing here for you, but I don’t think it’s productive to discuss both things together. Except perhaps as an example of how this (unavoidable?) conflict between personal and official positions can look a certain way.