Engadget vs. Commenters: Who Runs the Show?

My colleagues in our consumer team have an interesting discussion going regarding the Engadget vs. Gizmodo approach to blog comments. For those unaware, Engadget has  temporarily disabled comments due to a recent spike in trollish behavior; Gizmodo has responded with a post pointing to the merits of it’s somewhat more complex tiered comment system. Gizmodo concludes with an observation that the drastic measures Engadget is taking is a statement on the sad state of Internet commentary – abusive loud-mouths are getting the upper hand.

In explaining its position, Engadget notes: “Some of you out there in the world of anonymous grandstanding have gotten the impression that you run the place, but that’s simply not the case.”

Really?

The consensus my colleagues have come to – thus far – is generally that conversation is the essence of blogs. That it’s this feedback mechanism precisely that differentiates blogs from static news outlets. And that a strong community should self-moderate – if it doesn’t, then there’s a bigger problem than the individual rogues and trolls.

I think this also brings to bear a bigger discussion about the role of the blogger and the role of the readers within the context of social media. Is Engadget right in asserting that it’s the editors, not the readers, that run the site? Or as news gathering and social journalism opens up the playing field, is the role of an editor more of a social curator?