The whole question of blog ethics is a minefield. So glad the Devil's Kitchen posted on the topic because its owner illustrates exactly what Bloghounds is also trying to do.
DK points out that if you are shown to be wrong, you should at least concede it. Yes, yes and yes. Bloghounds believes that ethics means this type of thing, not that you need to be a goody-two-shoes, for whom butter wouldn't melt in the mouth.
Imprecate vocabulary and hitting hard, as long as you can back it up with sources, does not mean you are unethical. Making wild statements without backup is unethical. Shooting off at the mouth without some facts to point to is unethical. Threatening litigation at the drop of a hat, rather than arguing your case - I include that as unethical as well.
Like it or not, only blogs following scholarly standards, no matter how swearbloggy they are, are likely to survive in the long term [or at least keep readers coming back]. Everyone knows that.
Like it or not, we are coming into a period of official pressure to regulate and "clean-up" the blogosphere. We need to look to ourselves and clean up our own act first, the better to resist this trend towards regulation and sanction.
Bloghounds arose from the ashes of some very unethical behaviour from certain quarters which we won't rake over here. Its intellectual capital, the value of its very name, depends on ethics and that's why we go through a complicated process with new membership, with no beg pardons.
The value of your name is not established by bully boy tactics - it's established by how far readers accept your arguments and if yours are better, then they'll be believed. That's the ethical way to go and its the only way we're interested in.
DK points out that if you are shown to be wrong, you should at least concede it. Yes, yes and yes. Bloghounds believes that ethics means this type of thing, not that you need to be a goody-two-shoes, for whom butter wouldn't melt in the mouth.
Imprecate vocabulary and hitting hard, as long as you can back it up with sources, does not mean you are unethical. Making wild statements without backup is unethical. Shooting off at the mouth without some facts to point to is unethical. Threatening litigation at the drop of a hat, rather than arguing your case - I include that as unethical as well.
Like it or not, only blogs following scholarly standards, no matter how swearbloggy they are, are likely to survive in the long term [or at least keep readers coming back]. Everyone knows that.
Like it or not, we are coming into a period of official pressure to regulate and "clean-up" the blogosphere. We need to look to ourselves and clean up our own act first, the better to resist this trend towards regulation and sanction.
Bloghounds arose from the ashes of some very unethical behaviour from certain quarters which we won't rake over here. Its intellectual capital, the value of its very name, depends on ethics and that's why we go through a complicated process with new membership, with no beg pardons.
The value of your name is not established by bully boy tactics - it's established by how far readers accept your arguments and if yours are better, then they'll be believed. That's the ethical way to go and its the only way we're interested in.
I've come across a few blogs (racist) that need to be cleaned up.
ReplyDeleteBlogs should provoke a reaction but need to keep within certain boundaries, as do the press.
DR, the thing is so complex.
ReplyDeleteThere are some very destructive bloggers and to tackle them means we come off second best. They know their "rights" and will use them on any whistleblower, catching you up in some long drawn out war.
The climate is such now that these people propagate and flourish, just when we all need to watch what we do more carefully. I'd hate to see any externally imposed standards but there must be some sort of accepted thing in our own minds as to what is right and what is not.
' ... there must be some sort of accepted thing in our own minds as to what is right and what is not.'
ReplyDeleteSimple common decency in other words. What a delightfully old fashioned, and deliciously English, approach that is.
Some years ago the late George Melly opined that there had been 'a coarsening of society'. Too many 'influential' bloggers demonstrate that he was not wrong. I disagree that we need to watch what we say if we are to safeguard our freedom to say what we will but I do agree that we should remember that some things are just not done.
James I agree with you but can I add something- that you should always be fair to your opponents. That is something I believe that you are- we always have civilised debates- but its something that not all people in my view are. You should try not to caricature their arguments- I think someone like Mr Eugenides swears a lot but he does think about the arguments that he opposes and takes them seriously. In my view he is a more ethical blogger for example than some others who don't seem to ever think about the people that they are arguing with and what they are saying.
ReplyDeleteEthics to me is about the way in which you respond to other's arguments and think. Its also for me about the way that you use evidence- not misrepresenting it or distorting it wilfully. Its also about the way that you treat other bloggers- outing someone who does not wish to be outed would be for me incredibly unethical- but all those rules of ethics I think are the same as the rules for normal society. There will be some on the blogosphere who will disobey them- and probably disobey them in usual society- but I think in general except for the really big blogs, most blogs establish a culture around themselves which reflects the personality of the blogger.
I personally don't reckon much to the 'scholarliness' of the blogosphere- having done a PhD that took agonising amounts of work and quite often what I see on blogs is someone spouting off their opinion on the issue of the day. I don't think that's a problem though- but I don't think it should be called something it isn't both because it invites ridicule and diminishes the point they are making by putting it to an unrealistic standard and because it deceives people as to what real scholarship is. I would not class my own blog for example as scholarly.
Lastly I think there is a difference between an ethical blogger and the ideal blogger that's important to recognise. I think for example that the ideal blogger gets involved in supporting other blogs- does the kind of stuff you do in that regard- also does other stuff like deep research- but I don't think that is neccessary for all bloggers to do. The last few days have been an example of this for me because I've been ill I haven't posted much- others will have the same issue with things like work etc. Blogging comes in all shapes and sizes and interests and we should encourage variety- as I know you do.
Sorry long comment- but interesting post.
I am glad that you founded an even better online community that you can be proud of.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a huge differnce between information sharing on a person's blog, for the good of the community[something we have both done] and using a blog, or online group, to perpetuate abuse against another blogger.Rather than see Government imposed restrictions, I would rather Blogger were more pro active in dealing with their complaints. Better yet, paid blog subscriptions with a criteria bloggers had to meet.Only in terms of online conduct/standards.
Much as I dislike the general tone of Devil's Kitchen he is spot on with that post.
ReplyDeleteBe scholarly, be drivelly (a la Poor Mouth) but give people something to interest them. Be polite to people who put differing views politely and be prepared to stand corrected.
Not a code of conduct - more like common courtesy in my view
Feel free to correct inaccuracies on my blog
ReplyDeleteI think these are all fair points here and thanks so far.
ReplyDeleteGood point!
ReplyDeleteBasically I never say anything on my blog which I wouldn't say to my mum.
Sadly she isn't with us anymore, but I do hope she reads my blog and knows how happy I am and how much I love and miss her and dad. hence, i only use swear words I heard my mum use!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete