Calblog

Well, I don't agree about not changing posts. I do agree that one shouldn't substantially alter what youv'e said, but for fixing typos, grammatical errors, and so on, I don't have a problem with it at all. Nor do I consider that to be "Orwellizing," as some suggest. Yes, if you're going to change it in a way that could alter an argument someone makes, make someone quoting you look stupid, that's unethical--but even still, it's my blog, isn't it?

I mean, newspapers correct stories from their evening and morning editions without noting that they've changed it. I've seen other professional news sites change the content of stories on their web pages without saying anything.

So if we're going to have ethical rules about this, maybe we need to start by defining more clearly what counts as requiring an "update" note and what doesn't. Glitches, typos, and grammatical mistakes at minimum should not be subject to such scrutiny, I wouldn't think.

First rule of ethics is that no rules of ethics are allowed, and the everpresent regulation fascists please go away.

That's a good idea. As a relatively new blogger, I have had questions on accepted practices and usage.

I agree with Dean Esmay, though. Those of us who are poor proof readers appreciate the fact that we can go back and correct typos without making a big scene of it.

I agree with the first, but not the second. I often update posts based on reader input, new news stories I come across, and subsequent googling. However, I don't change the general message of the post. I will add a sentence if I think it helps improve the making of the point I am trying to make, or add links to things.

I update occasionally to fix typos or broken links. Changing the content (eg., changing a word, inserting or deleting sentences, etc) would strike me as unethical. Adding UPDATE: lines is ok.

As a reader of many blogs and not a blogger myself I find that I want to ask why you would codify ethics for bloggers? The idea I like best about blogs is that they are unregulated and uncensored unless a blogger chooses to regulate and censor themself. I've tried reading many blogs and it appears to me that some bloggers are ethical and some aren't and by reading their blogs each individual reader can make that determination for themself.

I've spent 32 years working for lawyers and when I started there was no such thing as an "ethics class" in law school, it was assumed that you had ethics before you entered, I think the same thing may apply here, you either have ethics or you don't and codifying an ethical system is unnecessary regulation of the blogsphere.

Just my thoughts, thanks for listening.

Before you codify a list of ethical rules for bloggers, perhaps you could explain why one is even needed.

This is not medicine, engineering, or law, people. This is personal writing on vanity sites.

LOL! Great post, J! Looks like you hit a nerve! lol!

I think it's a great idea. A compilation is definitely something that will help new and seasoned bloggers alike. I'll pass the word along!

(P.S. Love the new look!!)

Re: Why?

Because I think there are some unwritten rules that bloggers do agree on and I want to write them down for new bloggers.

Because I think of a code of ethics as a voluntary agreement, not rules imposed from above or without.

Because occasionally, we discover that some of us thought there was an agreement, but there isn't. For example, the recent controversy over whether Moxie was a name that could be used on other blogs and the recent controversy over comments that a blogger may or may not have deleted.

Because ethics, in general, interest me and there are few areas where you can watch the "code" develop.

BTW, when I wrote rule 2, I was thinking of substantive changes that change the meaning, not typos. If I get enough for a code, I would reflect the consensus.

I just linked to your post on blogging code of ethics and added some commentary on my site. Too lazy to repro it here - go there!

In addition to linking to the original article, I think there should be a protocol for "hat-tipping" the person who tells you about that article.

I agree with Ara. I hate when someone writes a whole post on something they obviously got from you, but doesn't credit you.

Deleting comments is a tough one. In general, I'm opposed to it; but i've been online since 1992, and I'm aware that there can be a substantial problem with spam comments. Electrolite has had problems with this, as has kuro5hin. And I can certainly understand a desire to forcibly keep conversation civil. Both of these may from time to time require deleting posts.

But aside from that, deleting comments simply because they disagree with you strikes me as ... well, not as unethical per se, but as somehow slimy and unbecoming.

In all my time online, the problem that has most consistently defied solution has been how to express that explosion of visceral laughter rooted in utter contempt.

I have a question for you, Justene:

Just who the hell do you wish you could be?

I delete comments that use foul language, or rely on personal attack. I also delete most comments that amount to thread-hijacking. But I do so under a strict policy that is permanently displayed on my blog, so commenters know in advance what the rules are. That would be a good code of ethics rule, if we're to have such a thing: Tell your readers what your policies are with regards to use of comments, etc.

I'm with michele on the "my blog, my rules" thing.

I'm good about linking and hat-tipping.

My personal rule on changing posts is that I fix and obvious errors that I find and feel free to edit them whenever I want to. I add an "update" if I find new info somewhere or to say "this other blogger also has a post on this topic." I also will use strikethroughs or such nomenclature if I'm fixing an error pointed out by a commentor.

"Almost every industry has some code of ethics. Eventually that code gets written down. The blogosphere has grown to the point where there are unwritten rules but I have not seen a code of ethics."

The blogosphere is an industry?

Looks to me more like it's a hobby. If you want to have a 'pro blog', then you should have standards of practice that approximate what you'd use in that profession.

I'll also note that I've heard NPR stories that changed between their first airing and their second airing, with no mention of the change.

If Cokie stumbles over a phrase, it'll get edited out when the thing repeats 2 hours later.

I tend to blog in a hurry but reserve the right to go back and fix the inevitable spelling errors. I always try to link to the source too. Having said that, I'll agree to a code of ethics just as soon as I get blogging groupies. Preferably ones in their early twenties with a certain moral laxness and specific skills they retained from their years as gymnasts. And boobs. Big naked boobs......

I'm sorry. What was the topic again?

Oh, that's right. Ethics. I'm for 'em. Count me in.

Hey, tbogg, don't forget that I'm in line for the whole groupie thing as well...

...to be serious for a moment, I'll suggest that freely changing your posts is a pretty big barier to being taken seriously, which most of us (yes, Tom, I'm pointing at you!) want to be.

For myself, I'll clean up verbiage in the first few minutes something's up, and I'll correct spelling and inconsequential grammer errors, but if I do anything else, I'll note it at the end of the post.

Just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

A.L.

I've tended to observe the guidelines stated in the post, once I got a good feel for the etiquette that seemed to be in place already when I started -- except that I adhere to a variant of the "five-second rule" on clarifying a point, correcting a typo, or deleting a snarkiness that, on reflection, just seemed out of line.

I figure if it hasn't been posted long enough to have been seen very widely, I'm entitled to make some changes without adding an update line. Of course, I could avoid such necessities by using "preview" first, but I only claim to be perfect when it's obvious I'm kidding. (Which, to those who know me, is all the time anyway...)

I have a sore spot for those who fail to "hat-tip" as Ara and Michele mention, especially since that's one of the aforementioned etiquette rules I didn't catch onto right away, yet I see it done routinely by people who have been blogging far longer than I have.

As for deleting comments, I reserve the right to maintain a standard for the discussions that take place on my blog, and the content that is therefore hosted on my server. I also have a policy about closing comments when a discussion has reached the point where the parties have nothing new to add except, "I'm getting the last word!" and "No you're not, I am!"

Those are the policies on comments that work for me, and some of the blogs I enjoy have similar ones, while others I enjoy have different ones. I think a distinction needs to be made, therefore, between what's ethical and what's prescriptive just for the sake of being prescriptive.

You should see Rebecca Blood's weblog ethics.

As Michele said and James echoed, source citing is a particular nit for many of us. To cite an example I just noted a post on BlogCritics that failed to mention Michele as the source for a certain ruling on comic books. Not that I'm certain on that, but coming just one day later looks suspicious...

I would have linked her post automatically had I written that piece. Then again I know two things: 1) I am not any less of a blogger by admitting that I saw this idea or story elsewhere, and 2) A portion of my readers will be aware of the original post. It's never a good idea to come across as a serial plagarist (i.e. Agonist).

When dealing with sources like Drudge or FARK it's a little murkier.

I have linked to this. I haven't really decided exactly what I want to say yet so I might post more this evening or tomorrow.

I thought of one more "rule" that most bloggers seem to agree on: Warn readers if a link is "not work safe."

I will almost always hat tip, or introduce my link with something like 'so-and-so tells me that [x] ...' and a link behind the so-and-so. However, as often happens with recall posts, if I find something in the news and weblog it and then *later* find that someone else has already weblogged on it, I usually don't retrofit the post.

Obligatory rude statement: Trust a lawyer type to try to regulate free speech, which is exactly what blogs are.

Pragmatic approach: I think a 'code of ethics' for bloggers is patently ridiculous, because it implies rules that would be improper requirements. An etiquette guide, on the other hand, would be extremely useful. I think that's more what you're actually proposing.

Breaking ethics rules gets you in trouble. Breaking etiquette simply gets you sneered at by the more socially competent.

Will at Crescat Sententia (sp) suggested blogger's etiquette. At some point we're stretching it thin though. Soon we'll be blogging about blogging about blogging about people doing stuff.

I'll change my blog anytime I damn want. Though, if I actually add content, rather than just correct typos or grammatical errors, I do mark it as an Update.

How about instead of trying to develop a unified code, we develop a unified habit of explicitly stating our own personal codes on very prominently-linked About pages on our own sites? That way new bloggers won't feel obligated to any particular set of rules, but they will be aware (if they're paying attention in the first place) of what kinds of things they should be conscientious of.

SFT

The practical solution to this ethical dilemma is for you, or somebody, to design a housekeeping seal, co-author a standards website and allow bloggers to decide for themselves if they would submit to the regime.

Understand that you have no authority to revoke anyone's status except to remove them from this high falutin' blogroll.

Kevin,
I understand what you mean, but about the comic post from Michele, that news is all over the net. Comics groups in Yahoo are in an uproar, as are related newsgroups. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt here, because there are so many sources online for news. It would be weird if *only* one person broke the story.
I did notice that Michele said 'obviously got from you', and I didn't see the post you referenced, so take the above as a general view and not specific to this instance.

"Ethics? We don't got to show you no stinking ethics."

I'm with cub4bear. These are essentially diaries - some more interesting and link-filled than others - and everyone should really evolve their own way of doing things that works for them. If, however, you insist on codifying things, I want to suggest that the blogosphere completely do away with the idea of begging for money to support a blog, until such time as there are no free blogging sites in existence any more. As long as you can blog for free, there's no reason to cyber-panhandle. Have a tip jar at your site if you really must, but don't call attention to it.

Posting a list somewhere of "good protocol for weblogs" is a great idea; a lot of new bloggers are a bit bumfuzzled about usual protocol at first. I know I was. But that's a long way from some kind of code of ethics, which will always and forever be a list of preferences by some that will then be used to pummel others who don't comply, no matter what the good intentions of the originators. There are enough examples of really good blogs out there for a general protocol to be implicit; and the market will deal with those who choose to operate outside it.

It's pretty simple to me: You link your sources, both original material and link sources. You quote accurately both in facts and intent. You respect the privacy of others. If you change your post so that it means something different than it did originally, note that in an update; if it's cleaning up typos or grammatical mistakes, no harm no foul. And deleting or not deleting comments is a personal choice; the only time I would object would be if a blogger edited a commenter's comments to say something other than they did originally.

Is that worthy of a code of ethics? No. It's basic courtesy, and as I said before, in obvious use throughout most of the corner of the blogosphere that I usually frequent. I don't see a need to set up any kind of formal guidelines. It's neither rocket science nor a medium requiring formal standardization for market purposes.

I encourage you to make a list of usual protocol. I think it's overdone to call it a "code of ethics" that people would sign on to.

I think a more useful model might be standards, rather than ethical code. For those of you not familiar with design standards, they simply represent a codification of the consensus of users regarding "best practice." Standards do not have, nor do they claim, to have any moral weight. Rather, they do just what you would expect standards to do - codify common practice such that all users can have some assurance that that those who claim to comply with standards are more or less doing things the same way. Not unlike using the metric system (or the Imperial system) or driving on the same side of the road as everyone else.

I would be hands-down against a Code of Ethics - simply because an ethical code for digital vanity publishing with small readerships is just silly and egotistical to boot.

However, a standard set of practices, which someone can claim to adhere to seems like a viable idea.

See also ISO-9000 certification, and the CE Marking under the Low-Voltage Directive in the EU. Or for that matter UL marking and IEC standards.

Many, many people have tried this before. I'm actually surprised that you haven't come across any previous attempts? Off of the top of my head I can recall around a dozen that I've come across in the past year alone.

My thoughts on this are that any blogger who will go the distance/is in it for the long haul/whatever phrase you prefer is going to follow the same basic path that many of us have either wandered down when beginning our own weblogs or have seen other newer bloggers emerge from...a few dumb mistakes will be made, the blogger will read around a bit and get a feel for, say, giving linkage credit and informing readers of extended absences from blogging, etc. and develop their own set of rules and codes.

The best thing I think we all can do is to gently guide the "newbie" bloggers when we see them doing something out-of-line. You start laying down "rules" or whatever name you want to give them and people will bristle if they think you're saying that their way of doing something is somehow "wrong". They'll get defensive and most likely end up ripping you a new one on their own blog where your "rules" or "code" hold no power over them.

STF has it right - if you have strong feelings about what should happen/what people can expect on your own blog put it in your "about" page - at the very least, that way you'll plant your idea of what's "right" in the minds of others and they'll hopefully take those lessons away with them.

Save yourself the headache and hassle is my advice. Be helpful, by all means, but I would seriously advice against laying yourself out like this for the sake of a code of ethics. If you must, I'd suggest you play it *extremely* thin and try to keep your statements as non-controversial as possible.

The first rule of the bloggers code of ethics is we don't talk about the bloggers code of ethics.

The idea that blogging needs a unique code of ethics indicates confusion between medium and content. There are codes of ethics for news reporting, commentary, etc. Blogging is not a specific type of content. It is a specific type of tool.

Create the code, let those who will follow the code put some sort of image ("Member of the Code of Ethics Blog Community" or something) on the side, and let those who do not want to follow the code not follow the code. If someone who has the image does not follow the code, do something about it (ethical or unethical). That's it, everyone happy. Some follow the code, and others do not.

Blogging has trained me to write much more quickly than I had before --- but that means an increase in errors, dangling sentences or doubled-up words. I pretty much won't touch a post after, say, two hours, but I think the core of it is not to change the general intent, and if folks don't like that it gets tweaked, too bad.

I think the first "rule" is probably a decent one. I think the second one is probably overly broad. I think basic corrections (typos and the like) are appropriate at any time - candidly, I think "traditional" news media probably does the same as best it can. If you are going to substantially alter the content an "update" is probably the way to go.

Although at the same time, we are talking about a medium (blogging) that is a very personal endeavor, so I question whether it is necessary to try to establish "rules" at all. I mean, it smacks of an effort to differentiate the "professionals" from the "amateurs" unless there are logical reasons for the "rules."

When I started designing web pages back in 1996 there was a lot of trial and error; over time, there evolved a set of guidelines (or rules, as some prefer) in terms of usability, readability, and the like. I certainly think it is appropriate to look for blogging guidelines in terms of a group of concepts that make blogs more useful or useable - but there again, I wonder if this search for rules isn't in part nothing more than an attempt at validation through standardization.

If you’re taking votes, I think it’s okay to fix spelling and grammar without comment unless it's been a while (a day, a week, etc.).

Personally, If I notice it because of a comment, an email, or because Google starts showing up in my referrer log with poor spelling, I'll use a line-through.

There doesn't need to be a 'code' and it certainly doesn't need to be 'enforced'. The reason is social behavior already allows for handling these issues. One hassle is we're not as physically connected as actual face-to-face groups might be. Thus the practices a group might apply to 'helping' it's participants find a level of acceptable behavior are often missing from online interactions.

So if you're going to post, THINK first. If you consider it worthwhile, or you're trying to 'belong' to some sort of vague group then you'd do well to be considerate. Some folks, however, don't give a rats ass and will insult people without even a shred of caution. Sort of like being in middle school.

In the end you're only accountable to how you desire being percieved by the people you choose as peers. If you show no respect for them don't be surprised when they don't either.

You're an idiot.

Blogging is completely free-form, as is the web itself. We can write about whatever subjects we want, and we can do it in whatever fashion we want. Once written, those things can be altered to accommodate new ideas, understandings, or changed opinions.

We don't owe anybody reading our blogs shit. We don't owe anyone the "right" to have their comments preserved for all eternity. If I don't like it, or want it, I'll delete it. My blog, my rules, my "ethics".

This is all such pretentious bullshit.

If these practices are so important to you, you follow them. Leave everybody else alone.

I asked about this recently. Actually, my questions were more about blogging etiquette, but this is along the same lines.

I think you're on the right track. I wholeheartedly agree with #1. I detest intellectual dishonesty, and quoting without attribution is just wrong. Period. End of story.

#2 is a bit more problematical. Are you talking wholesale content changes or any change at all. Movable Type doesn't come with a spelling or grammar checker, and I frequently have to go in and patch booboo's. I see no ethical dilemma in that.

However, if I post something in which I describe George W. Bush as evil incarnate, and then 12 hours later I alter it to an unabashedly pro-Bush post (shudder...), well, that is wrong.

Here's a rule I try to live by: No gratuitous insults, no unsubstantiated accusation...don't pee in my sandbox, and I won't be hanging it over yours.

Cheers!!

I posted the below at posting web site(not this one) and since it was connected to my web site where I sell the book, It was removed, and think that it was unethical considering my point was not to sell books but to get interest in a very important research, and yes selling the book could help my research to solve problem.
"A prayer without action is void" Buddha

“In 1990 they found that the Earth goes through abrupt temperature changes from deep ice samples in Greenland of about 10,000 years ago the Earth’s temperature dropped 19 degrees” (research found by weather channel) taking 5-10 years (weather channel) but from analytical data, I intend to show this could take for the most part one year (Robert T Bailey) and more shocking a large part of the temperature change will happen this year!

The End of the World as we known it is coming; an ice Age will change the face of the Earth.

We have a crisis here. In America we have found that united we stand, divided we fall. This crisis is so big, the world will unite or the world will fall.

Let's work together.

It looks like an Ice Age Started the first of August/2003. In the North around New York area (North Eastern America) there is a resort that in august many people go swimming but this August the water was to cold! They even had to rescue a person from the cold water. Now the reason that this unusual is that it is where most of the nuclear reactors are there and they give off 1/5 of there power in neutrinos.

So we have two things here, unusual cold and it is in place where most nuclear reactors are.

According to my theory, neutrinos (they can go all the way through Earth) are stopped in deep layers of Earths crust from nuclear reaction of Sun, and produce heat keeping Earth's crust at 60 degrees. After about 100,000 years it reaches a threshold and can't stop any more neutrinos thus heat stops coming from deep crust, and we go into ice age until magnetic field of Earth reverses (10to 10,000 years?). So it would be hard to tell if Earths nuclear reactors neutrinos had a big effect or small until the exact theory of particle neutrinos is know (the neutrinos from earths reactors come at different direction than neutrinos coming from Sun). So I am guessing Earths nuclear reactors have small effect, but enough to start ice age where most of them are located.

The Sun stops 1`/3 of neutrinos produced by it's nuclear reaction, in Sun's core, and reaches threshold every 11 years, producing Solar Flare and the magnetic field of Sun reverses. The Earth Stops neutrinos coming from Sun and some from nuclear reactors on Earth in its core and in doing this it produces heat keeping Earth crust at 60 degrees until it reaches threshold and during this time the Earth goes into Ice Age (when Earths was young and crust was thin, their was eruptions blew dust all over Earth causing great extinctions but now crust is thick and holds back eruptions, a compression of energy in core until magnetic field of Earth reverses).

The core around the North East started going cold last winter (2003) and gave that part of country a bad winter, but warm winds keep it from getting too bad.

Now (May 25, 2004) the cold core has expanded to west coast and the edge of Pacific Ocean, this will cool the warm winds and Ice Age will come into focus.