Blogging talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct/Nothing we wouldn't say in person

From Blogging

[edit] Things that would not be said in person

One of the powerful things about the internet is that it allows opressed people to share information they would not be at liberty to share in "real life". ~erik

This is a very problematic clause that IMO needs to be cut out. First of all, for members of some minority groups such as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender populations, religious minorities, people suffering from some diseases, and political dissidents the Internet provides a forum for the expression of views that many would find to be embarrassing, and would open up possibilities of discrimination and/or violence.

Face-to-face norms of politeness vary from community to community, and conflicts between those norms are not infrequent. These norms can vary between genders within a culture as well. We know that when those tendencies are taken into online discourse, that they result in conflicts between participants. Case of sexual or racial harassment, it's rather foolish to assume that some participants wouldn't be saying the exact same thing verbally in "safe" environments of like-minded individuals.

On the other hand, while we know that online discourse has many of the same characteristics of other forms of human discourse, online discourse also adapts to the constraints and capabilities of the medium. (Just like every other form of discourse in human history.) Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) is sometimes used in instructional environments as an adjunct to f2f discussion for this reason. While I appreciate the sentiment here, I don't think this is a very productive way to approach the problem.

This is also not a new problem. I would suggest also taking a look at RFC 1855 the "netiquette guide" http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html to see what to incorporate. -Kirk Job Sluder, kirkjobsluder at gmail dot com

I would not put this clause in a code of conduct. Different people will have different standards for what they will say in person and if a statement is offensive, it really doesn't matter to me if the speaker would have said it to my face. - Dscrimshaw

While I agree that it is great that oppressed people have an anonymous voice online, this rule really protects the people who write these things. The point is there is a strong likely hood that what you thought was anonymous may not actually be anonymous and if you cannot live by the consequences of that post being public then you should rethink doing it.

Too often it is tne anonymous people who are the ones who get hurt, because they share sensitive information and eventually it gets tracked back to them. There is no real protection from this, except to understand that the possibility is there that no matter how anonymous you think you are it could be traced back to you.

[edit] Suggested changes around rule2, and additional rules

2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.

Unless we are trying to protect a confidential source, in which case, we may omit certain private details or otherwise obfuscate the soure of the information.

2. We strive to be respectful in our disagreements with others, by focusing on issues rather than personalities.

Often our posts are built on an important disagreement. In our posts, we will try to address the issues underlying the disagreement rather than the personalities involved in the disagreement. If our differences of opinion can't be resolved, we have the option to agree to disagree.

For reason's I've stated http://blogging.wikia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Blogger%27s_Code_of_Conduct&oldid=2316#Things_that_would_not_be_said_in_person the "not said in person" rule is really problematic. This is an alternative guideline.

Add:

3. We give others the benefit of the doubt.

Posts to blogs are often made "off the cuff," in a short period of time, and with minimal editing. Many perceived disagreements often stem from misunderstandings. We will try to extend the benefit of the doubt before taking offense.

Often I find that many internet flamewars can be mediated if the participants just took a step back and asked themselves, "did they really mean that?" IMO this rule should go after #2.

Add:

LAST. We are only human (and admit it.)

We will try to follow these guidelines, but will sometimes make mistakes. We will take responsibility for our own actions.

I don't think it is possible to follow a code of conduct perfectly. So we should offer some accountability for we don't.

-Kirk Job Sluder, kirkjobsluder at gmail dot com.