August 6th, 2005.

If you've come to look at my blog, and not found it here, please read the next section first.

In update to what I already said, I need to explain that some of what I put in my blog is not true.

I was going through all the content last night, and I came across bits of text describing things that didn't actually happen. I don't even remember writing them, or making a conscious decision to deceive people reading my blog, but I must have decided that my blog was boring (hey, even I found it boring, and it was my life), so I used a bit of creative license, and I put things in there that weren't entirely true, to make it sound a bit more interesting, or "juicy" if you like.

I'm not going to point out things that aren't true, or are exagerated. The easiest way to deal with this, is to assume that anything you read in my blog was partially or wholly false or inaccurate.

All the content of my blog has been taken offline, and the majority of it will not be put back online again.

Some of the content, mainly technical stuff, and details about concerts and other events I've been to may become available in a new blog, and only the completely accurate content, which has no association with where I work, or people I work with. The rest of the content is not going online again.

I didn't figure that anyone was reading my blog, or anyone who was, had no idea who I or anyone else in my blog were, so what went in there didn't matter, but now it seems that was not the case, so I feel that it is necessary for me to expose the fact that there were mistruths in the text.

I was trying to avoid exposing the fact that I was misleading people, and basically lied, but it is necessary to expose that fact now, to avoid other people being effected by incorrect information that I wrote, about them, when I had no right to do so.

August 4th, 2005.

I was browsing the internet a few days ago, and I came across an article about blogging, and how it can get you in trouble.

The article is here, but if it disappears, then I include the content of it below.

In a somewhat conflicting way, I also found an interview with a computer science student, here. He has a similar view to me, that blogging should be unregulated.

I didn't read much of it (the first link article), but I came back and finished it recently, and it made me think that perhaps my blog could get me in trouble. The second half of the article doesn't really apply, but the bit about "Webloggers often feel that they have the right to trade rumours, gossip and speculation without accountability.", and also "it is equally imperative in the blogosphere to protect the privacy of others.", "it is never acceptable to publish a transcript of an instant message, chat-room conversation, or email on a personal weblog without the permission of all the participants."

I think that over the last couple of years, I've probably included some content in my blog that I should not have, and I had no right to do so, since I did not have the permission of the people involved.

I have always tried to make my blog anonymous, so it would not be obvious as to who I was talking about, but I think that since I've used so many anonymous ways of refering to people, that my pseudonyms (sp?) for them have become more descriptive than just giving their name (which I have always tried to make sure I never did), and in some cases my descriptions for people, though always used in an effectionate way, could possibly be seen as insulting or offensive in some cases.

Further to what is mentioned in the article I linked to, in reference to the gossip about the presidential candidate, who is to know if that information is correct, or made up? Some of the details I could have put into my blog could possibly be taken out of context, or perhaps I was confused about what I had seen or heard, and I inadvertantly took things out of context.

This could have resulted in me unintentionally defaming people, or tarnishing their reputation, by mentioning things which could be false, or inaccurate.

As a result of this, I'm taking my blog down temporarily, and I might not put it back up at all. I'll probably go through and remove anything that I think could be inappropriate, like other people I've interacted with, and information about proprietry systems I've worked on, but this might be such a big task, that I just end up deciding to remove the whole thing permanantly.

I might start again from now, in a much less verbose way, or I might not start it again at all.

If anyone who I've blogged about has read my blog, and not been impressed by it, then I sincerely apologise, it was never my intention to offend anyone. If you contact me, I will do whatever I can to resolve any problems.

I don't like conflict, and I would not like to think that I have caused any, but if I have, then I would like to do whatever is necessary to sort these out.

Reading the article has made me realise that I've probably also included content that is not for public knowledge, considering the fact that I have written a lot about where I'm working, since basically all I've done for the last 5 months is work, since I lost my license, and have to live near work during the week, and I have no life other than working.

I can be contected via email, simon dot quigley at squigley dot net, for any communications, which will be held confidentially, unlike some of the stuff I've mentioned in my blog over the last couple of years.

I never intended for my blog to turn into what it did. My original motivation was just to have a place to have a rant, like those crazy homeless people that stand around mumbling and preaching to anyone and no one, without having to burden people with actually having to listen, unless they wanted to, with a rare bit of possibly useful information, like my fun with trying to get linux running on my new laptop, or the fun I had with trying to get Dell to fix the keyboard.

Around the time I got my laptop, and other similar stuff, like my wireless gear, and NSLU2, I was thinking about starting a spinoff blog, to just blog about the technical stuff I do, and leave out all the ramblings about my day. Perhaps this is what I will do, just salvage the technical content of my blog, and restart it, as a technical blog.

My other main reason for starting a blog, was to perhaps become involved with a new group of people online, ending up in one of those blogging groups, since the other online communites I'm a member of, have become rather quiet over the last year/couple of years.

This has not really been something that happened, the most communication I ever had from the blog was technical, related to getting linux running on my laptop (and other people with Inspiron 2200s), so maybe the whole thing would be more successful as a technical blog.

Blogs - Corporate Blogging - Ethics

(Redirected from Corporate Blogging- Ethical Situations)

“A major difference between the internet and real life is that everything you say online may live forever.” (Blood, 2002, p.129) Weblogs last forever…

Rumours of Alexandra Polier’s (who is better known as the Kerry intern) alleged affair with presidential candidate Senator John Kerry spilled into the blogosphere earlier this year. The bloggers soon had the attention of the tabloid journalists, radio talk-show hosts and cable news anchors. Despite the case being exceedingly thin, with both Kerry and Polier vehemently denying the affair, the information remains in weblogs around the world to this day (Grossman, 2004, 46). Webloggers often feel that they have the right to trade rumours, gossip and speculation without accountability. Is this true? Is this ethical in the blogosphere? Do weblogs present threats to personal privacy by the nature and distribution of information over the Internet? Who is to say that webloggers are not going to defame others via their blogs?

Just as one should do offline, it is equally imperative in the blogosphere to protect the privacy of others. According to Blood (2002, p. 135) it is never acceptable to publish a transcript of an instant message, chat-room conversation, or email on a personal weblog without the permission of all the participants.

What makes a blog so new and innovative is the fact that they break rules (grammar is not a major issue, they are more personal than the mass media, and they do not need to attempt to be objective in nature.) This is not to say that ethics do not need to be considered. For example, writers are somehow tempted to employ sarcasm far more often when online than off. Sarcasm should only be employed with reluctance, and should be identified as such. Although a bloggers code of ethics does not “formally” exist, bloggers should still be ethical. Blood (2002) has created a set of six principles that she suggests webloggers follow (p. 117). However she highlights that if a weblogger expects to be accorded the privileges and protections of a professional journalist, he or she should follow the journalistic code of ethics (Blood, 2002, p.118).

Weblogs are usually criticised for being more unethical than mainstream media, because information pertained in them does not have to be checked. Recently, however, the tables were turned when a weblogger discovered that CBS News aired a forged story.

On September 8, 2004, CBS News was suspected of forging memos as part of its 60 minutes story on President Bush’s Vietnam-era National Guard Service. The focus of the story was intended to be on Bush; however the story shifted to old media vs. new media. Young (Sep 20, 2004) explains, “Hours after the show aired, questions about the authenticity of the memos, purportedly written by Bush’s then- superior officer Jerry Killian in 1973, surfaced on right-of-center blogs.” Following the lead, ABC News and The Washington Post were also questioning the authenticity of the memos. In an attempt to defend the story, Jonathan Klein, who was the former CBS News executive commented, “You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.” (Young Sep 20, 2004). Klein’s comment caused uproar with bloggers who believe that there are so many weblogs that they each play the fact-checking role with each other. Although this is only one example, it shows that ‘old’ media are also capable of being unethical.

Blood (2002, p. 19) claims that a link is the single most important thing that distinguishes weblogging from traditional forms of publishing. A link gives weblogs credibility by creating a transparency that is impossible in any other medium. Stone (2002, p. 180) believes that weblog credibility is often low because blogging has no editorial process. According to him, a blog will appear more credible if it:

    * Gets to the point early
    * Expresses one thought at a time
    * Goes easy on the technical jargon
    * Resists excessive sarcasm
    * Is justified
    * Includes links 

If a weblog maintains ethical practices, it will increase its credibility, which in turn, will increase the amount of people who regularly read and respond to the weblog (this is vital, as there are now so many blogs).